Connect with us

Foreign

Massive loss for Biden’s administration as U.S Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration laws

Published

on

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to enforce for now a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest migrants.

The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over.

That means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could be blocked at a later date. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, hailed the court order, calling it “clearly a positive development,” though he acknowledged that the legal battle is not over. Joe Biden becomes first incumbent president to lose Democrat primary election in Samoa

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that the law “will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border.”

Advertisement

“The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision.

The majority did not explain its reasoning, but one of the conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to note that an appeals court has yet to weigh in on the issue. Advertisements “If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court,” she wrote. Her opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. In response to the Supreme Court order, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fast-tracked oral arguments on the Biden administration’s effort to block the law. Arguments are set to take place Wednesday morning, meaning a decision could come quickly.

The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties. It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.

Advertisement

A top Mexico official said Tuesday in a statement on X that the country will not accept deportations from Texas.

According to a spokesperson for the Texas Department for Public Safety, there is no start date yet for enforcement of the law. Lt. Chris Olivarez said that state officials have been planning for its implementation for months, but they’re still discussing some practical details.

In Val Verde County on the U.S.-Mexico border, Sheriff Joe Frank Martinez said his small force, with three deputies on duty around the clock for a 3,145 square mile county of 47,586 people, will not start arresting migrants until he receives guidance from the state.

“I think that we all are in uncharted waters,” he said Tuesday.

Advertisement

He said not only is he not sure how and when to initiate enforcement of the state law, but that he will likely need more deputies and jail space if tasked with the new enforcement initiative. The county jail has a daily capacity of 94, Martinez said.“Right now we’re not equipped to handle that,” he said.

The dispute is the latest clash between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border. In a separate opinion, Kagan wrote that the Texas law appears to conflict with federal law, noting that “the subject of immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the federal government.”

A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

The appeals court has not yet decided whether to grant the federal government’s request to block the law. On March 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary freeze on the law to give the Supreme Court time to consider the federal government’s request. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in court papers that the law is “flatly inconsistent” with Supreme Court precedent dating back 100 years.

Advertisement

“Those decisions recognize that the authority to admit and remove noncitizens is a core responsibility of the national government, and that where Congress has enacted a law addressing those issues, state law is preempted,” she wrote.

The appeals court, Prelogar added, did not explain its reasoning for allowing the law to go into effect. She dismissed Texas’ argument that its law can be defended on the basis that the state is effectively battling an invasion at the border under the State War Clause of the Constitution.

The provision says states cannot “engage in war, unless actually invaded” or in imminent danger. “A surge of unauthorized immigration plainly is not an invasion within the meaning of the State War Clause,” Prelogar wrote.

Defending the law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in court papers that the measure complements federal law and the state should be allowed to enforce it.

Advertisement

The Constitution “recognizes that Texas has the sovereign right to defend itself from violent transnational cartels that flood the state with fentanyl, weapons, and all manner of brutality,” he added.

Texas is “the nation’s first-line defense against transnational violence and has been forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border,” Paxton said.

The city of El Paso and two immigrant rights groups, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and American Gateways, have also challenged the law and filed their own emergency request at the Supreme Court.

In 2012, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of a tough immigration law enacted in Arizona. Only two of the justices who were in the majority in that case are still on the court: Chief Justice John Roberts and Sotomayor.

Advertisement

Biden administration outrage over Supreme Court verdict President Biden Outraged over Supreme Court’s Decision Granting Texas Authority to Arrest Undocumented Immigrants Pending Final Ruling, Making Border Crossings a State Crime.

In a statement, the Biden White House writes, “We fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court’s order allowing Texas’ harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect. “S.B. 4 will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement, and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border.

“S.B. 4 is just another example of Republican officials politicizing the border while blocking real solutions. “We remained focused on delivering the significant policy changes and resources we need to secure the border – that is why we continue to call on Congressional Republicans to pass the bipartisan border security agreement, the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Foreign

Pentagon set to sack 5400 staff as attack hits Trump’s downsizing plan

Published

on

The Defense Department said Friday that it’s cutting 5,400 probationary workers starting next week and will put a hiring freeze in place.

It comes after staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, were at the Pentagon earlier in the week and received lists of such employees, U.S. officials said. They said those lists did not include uniformed military personnel, who are exempt. Probationary employees are generally those on the job for less than a year and who have yet to gain civil service protection.

“We anticipate reducing the Department’s civilian workforce by 5-8% to produce efficiencies and refocus the Department on the President’s priorities and restoring readiness in the force,” Darin Selnick, who is acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in a statement.

President Donald Trump’s administration is firing thousands of federal workers who have fewer civil service protections. For example, roughly 2,000 employees were cut from the U.S. Forest Service, and an 7,000 people are expected to be let go at the Internal Revenue Service.

Advertisement

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has supported cuts, posting on X last week that the Pentagon needs “to cut the fat (HQ) and grow the muscle (warfighters.)”

The Defense Department is the largest government agency, with the Government Accountability Office finding in 2023 that it had more than 700,000 full-time civilian workers.

Hegseth also has directed the military services to identify $50 billion in programs that could be cut next year to redirect those savings to fund Trump’s priorities. It represents about 8% of the military’s budget.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Foreign

Senate approves Trump’s ally, Patel as FBI boss

Published

on

The Republican-controlled US Senate on Thursday confirmed Kash Patel, a staunch loyalist of President Donald Trump, to be director of the FBI, the country’s top law enforcement agency.

Patel, 44, whose nomination sparked fierce but ultimately futile opposition from Democrats, was approved by a 51-49 vote.

The vote was split along party lines with the exception of two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted not to confirm Patel to head the 38,000-strong Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Patel drew fire from Democrats for his promotion of conspiracy theories, his defense of pro-Trump rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and his vow to root out members of a supposed “deep state” plotting to oppose the Republican president.

Advertisement

The Senate has approved all of Trump’s cabinet picks so far, underscoring his iron grip on the Republican Party.

Among them is Tulsi Gabbard, confirmed as the nation’s spy chief despite past support for adversarial nations including Russia and Syria, and vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be health secretary.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, in a last-ditch bid to derail Patel’s nomination, held a press conference outside FBI headquarters in downtown Washington on Thursday and warned that he would be “a political and national security disaster” as FBI chief.

Speaking later on the Senate floor, Durbin said Patel is “dangerously, politically extreme.”

Advertisement

“He has repeatedly expressed his intention to use our nation’s most important law enforcement agency to retaliate against his political enemies,” he said.

Patel, who holds a law degree from Pace University and worked as a federal prosecutor, replaces Christopher Wray, who was named FBI director by Trump during his first term in office.

Relations between Wray and Trump became strained, however, and though he had three more years remaining in his 10-year tenure, Wray resigned after Trump won November’s presidential election.

– ‘Enemies list’ –

Advertisement

A son of Indian immigrants, the New York-born Patel served in several high-level posts during Trump’s first administration, including as senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and as chief of staff to the acting defense secretary.

There were fiery exchanges at Patel’s confirmation hearing last month as Democrats brought up a list of 60 supposed “deep state” actors — all critics of Trump — he included in a 2022 book, whom he said should be investigated or “otherwise reviled.”

Patel has denied that he has an “enemies list” and told the Senate Judiciary Committee he was merely interested in bringing lawbreakers to book.

“All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution,” he said.

Advertisement

The FBI has been in turmoil since Trump took office and a number of agents have been fired or demoted including some involved in the prosecutions of Trump for seeking to overturn the 2020 election results and mishandling classified documents.

Nine FBI agents have sued the Justice Department, seeking to block efforts to collect information on agents who were involved in investigating Trump and the attack on the Capitol by his supporters.

In their complaint, the FBI agents said the effort to collect information on employees who participated in the investigations was part of a “purge” orchestrated by Trump as “politically motivated retribution.”

Trump, on his first day in the White House, pardoned more than 1,500 of his supporters who stormed Congress in a bid to block certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Foreign

EU diplomat bombs Trump over dictator comment on Zelensky, points at Putin

Published

on

The EU’s top diplomat said Thursday she had initially thought US President Donald Trump had confused Volodymyr Zelensky with Vladimir Putin when he called the Ukrainian leader a “dictator”.

“First when I heard this, I was like, oh, he must be mixing the two, because clearly Putin is the dictator,” Kaja Kallas told reporters in Johannesburg.

In a post on his Truth Social platform Wednesday, Trump wrote that Zelensky was a “dictator without elections”.

Zelensky’s five-year term expired last year but Ukrainian law does not require elections during war-time.

Advertisement

“Zelensky is an elected leader in fair and free elections,” Kallas said in a briefing after attending a meeting of G20 foreign ministers.

The constitutions of many countries allow for elections to be suspended during wartime in order to focus on the conflict, she said.

Russia, which attacked Ukraine in 2022, could choose to hold free elections but “they are afraid of democracy expanding because in democracy, the leaders are held accountable,” the EU foreign policy chief said.

“It’s literally from the dictator’s handbook.”

Advertisement

Trump has rattled Ukraine and its European backers by opening direct talks with Moscow on ending the war but excluding Kyiv and European countries.

Kallas said the focus should remain on supporting Ukraine and putting political and economic pressure on Russia.

The stronger Ukraine is on “the battlefield, the stronger they are behind the negotiation table,” she said, adding, “Russia doesn’t really want peace.”

It was also premature to talk about sending troops to protect Ukraine after any ceasefire deal with Russia, Kallas said.

Advertisement

Rather, Ukraine needed concrete security guarantees that Russia would not attack again, she said, adding that history had shown that ceasefires had only been opportunities for Russia “to regroup and rearm.”

AFP

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News