Open Borders and Closed Courts: How the Supreme Court Laid the Seeds for the Immigration Crisis

Jonathan Turley ^ | Feb. 5, 2024 | Jonathan Turley

[chickenlips]

Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law.

Here is the column:

The upcoming impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has caused a deep rift even among his critics, including some Republican members of Congress.

Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary. The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.

I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards. But whatever happens in the House, the real crisis is not the employment status of Mayorkas. It is what brought the House to seriously consider this extreme remedy in the first place.

The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.

SNIP>>>>.

[chickenlips]

More at the link.....

[ansel12]

Texas lost this case in 1982.

“”In 1975 Texas “prohibited the use of state funds for the education of children who had not been legally admitted to the U.S” (457 U.S.202).[6] The policy also allowed schools to deny enrollment of any “unauthorized” child seeking to attend the school. Then in 1977, the Tyler Independent School District instituted a policy mandating that foreign-born students who were not considered to be legally admitted to the United States were required to pay tuition.””

[packagingguy]

“In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action.”

Here’s what I don’t understand. The city park in question belonged to Eagle Pass (I think). It did not belong to FedGov.

Almost none of the border in Texas is federal land outside of Big Bend National Park. It is private, municipal or state.

So how does FedGov have any authority over these lands? Could someone explain why a private landowner or city can’t put up a fence because of FedGov?

What if FedGov decides everyone has to leave their doors unlocked at night? An illegal might need to come sleep in your house, so that’s a federal issue?

[Dr. Franklin]

Texas lost this case in 1982.
“”In 1975 Texas “prohibited the use of state funds for the education of children who had not been legally admitted to the U.S” (457 U.S.202).[6] The policy also allowed schools to deny enrollment of any “unauthorized” child seeking to attend the school. Then in 1977, the Tyler Independent School District instituted a policy mandating that foreign-born students who were not considered to be legally admitted to the United States were required to pay tuition.””

We need to focus on the cost of illegal immigration as an unfunded federal mandate. By flooding the cities with illegal children, educational resources for American children is greatly reduced. The urban poor in Rat run cities are starting to catch on that they are getting screwed.

[GOPJ]

Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary.

The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.

Mayorkas is a disaster and yeah the border is a security threat...

[Robert DeLong]

Constitution gives a state every right to stop an invasion of its state.

[Robert DeLong]

Corrected Link:

Constitution gives a state every right to stop an invasion of its state.

[Regulator]

Plyler v Doe is just the original abomination.

It’s also un-Constitutional and needs to be overturned just as Roe was.

[oldbill]

They were all liberal majority courts.

[ansel12]

When I heard that news I knew that the forces against us were determined to prevent any successful pushback on immigration.

[oldbill]

No it doesn’t give a right to every state to stop in invasion.
It guarantees a right to be free from a border invasion, but it doesn’t specify who will be the guarantor and enforcer for that action.

Past liberal (pre-Trump) courts have claimed that power of enforcement only belongs to the federal government, even if they don’t exercise it.

[Robert DeLong]

The 5 were:

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Anthony M. Kennedy

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Stephen G. Breyer

Sonia Sotomayor

[Robert DeLong]

Federal Government has overall authority granted to it in the Constitution to be responsible for immigration, but the states still has safeguards, as the previous link I provided points to 4 provisions in the Constitution that a state can protect itself from an invasion. This definitely qualifies as an invasion, and the Federal Government is refusing to stop that invasion.

[Robert DeLong]

You need to go in further because it absolutely does give the states the right to stop an invasion, especially when the Federal Government refuses to do so.

[A strike]

FJohnRoberts

-fJRoberts-

[A strike]

oldbill may be at the Bidementia stage

[oldbill]

Show me where in the Constitution it states that a state has the power by itself to stop an invasion. Nor does it say a state doesn’t have the power.
If anything, it implies that the federal government has the duty to guarantee a state the right to be free of an invasion.
The final determination as to whom the duty - duty, not right - to protect a state from invasion will have to be a Supreme Court ruling, and who knows how those six idiots will rule.

[Robert DeLong]

A state that is being invaded has every right to protect itself:

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article IV, Section 4 is generally known as the Guarantee Clause.1 Through its terms, the United States makes three related assurances to the states: (1) a guarantee of a republican form of government; (2) protection against foreign invasion; and (3) upon request by the state, protection against internal insurrection or rebellion.2

An early version of the Guarantee Clause was among the resolutions of the Virginia Plan introduced at the Constitutional Convention by Edmund Randolph and attributed to James Madison.3 The resolution went through several formulations during the debates at the Convention.4 During a key debate, Gouverneur Morris objected to the resolution because [h]e should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R[hode] Island ought to be guarantied.5 Randolph explained that, rather than cementing the existing laws of the states, the resolution had two objects: 1. to secure Republican Government[;] 2. to suppress domestic commotions.6 Along with concerns about rebellions, delegates expressed fears that a monarchy might arise in a particular state and establish a tyranny over the whole [United States].7

Answering Morris’s objection, Madison moved to substitute language that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guarant[eed] to them respectively [against] domestic as well as foreign violence,8 with Randolph then moving to add language that no State shall be at liberty to form any other than a Republican [Government].9 James Wilson then introduced, as a better expression of the idea, language substantially similar to the final form of the Guarantee Clause, which the Convention approved unanimously.10 In light of its text and framing, the Guarantee Clause was intended to be more than an authorization for the federal government to protect states against foreign invasion or internal insurrection,11 a power already conferred elsewhere in the Constitution.12 While the precise contours of what constitutes a republican form of government are debatable,13 an additional object of the Guarantee Clause was to prevent states from establishing monarchical or despotic governments.14 Except for a brief period during Reconstruction, the authority granted by the Guarantee Clause has been largely unexplored.15 The Supreme Court and other federal courts have largely declined to hear legal challenges based on the Guarantee Clause because they present nonjusticiable political questions.16

My thoughts are the following:

When the Federal Government does not live up to its end of the agreement to protect a state from invasion, the state has every right to protect itself. In fact, the president is committing an act of treason by not following through on the agreement set forth in the Constitution.

[Vaduz]

The seeds of disaster by the Supreme Court appear to be a dram come true for the globalists.

Soros’s owned party doing all they can to help it along.

[oldbill]

I agree, but you miss the fine legal point.
There is no specific language authorizing a state itself to fight an invasion, only an inference that the federal government has an obligation to do so. There is no provision for what happens when the federal government fails to perform its obligation, which is where we are now.