Governor Abbott’s bold plan: Empower all Texas peace officers to detain illegal immigrants

In a system of federalism, free and sovereign citizens divide power between state and federal ​governments. Now, thanks to the Texas state government, ​freedom and federalism ​stand poised to gain an important victory.

This weekend on Fox⁢ News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” with host⁤ Maria Bartiromo, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas promised he soon will sign a⁢ bill that ⁣will‍ make‌ illegally crossing Texas’ border with Mexico ⁣a state crime.

“In two weeks, I’ll ‍be‍ signing a new law in the‍ state of Texas that​ will make it⁢ illegal for people⁣ to enter the state of Texas from another‍ country illegally ⁣and authorizing ‌every peace office in ⁤the state of Texas⁢ to arrest ‌those people ⁤entering our country illegally,” Abbott said.

Were I to advise Abbott on the best way to speak about the new law  — not a way‌ that would‍ satisfy lawyers​ but ‍nonetheless‍ the most constitutional and truthful ⁤way — I would ‌encourage him to substitute “entering our state illegally” for‍ “entering our country illegally.” More on that ‌in a ⁢moment.

According to The Texas Tribune — an Austin-based news⁣ outlet focused on statewide news — the law⁢ will have​ major‍ implications.

• Senate Bill ​4, approved last‌ month, will authorize Texas police to arrest illegal immigrants ⁣on state charges.
• Under the ⁣legislation, an illegal‍ crossing between ports of entry will result in ⁣a​ Class B misdemeanor. ⁢A prior conviction ​will make the charge a ⁣second-degree felony.
• State police will‌ not have⁤ unlimited discretion,​ as they ⁣should not ⁣under any circumstances. For instance, the legislation ⁣forbids arrests in places such as secondary schools, churches and ​health care facilities.
• Republican state Rep. David ‌Spiller, who‍ sponsored the bill⁤ in the ⁢Texas House, also⁢ noted the legislation will authorize police to focus​ only ⁤on‌ immigrants ​ who have crossed⁣ illegally in the last ⁣two to three ⁢years. Statutes of limitations will ​prevent law enforcement officials ​from targeting ⁤any illegal immigrant who arrived before⁣ then.

Of course, the usual suspects have ‍lined up to denounce the bill.

According to The Texas ⁤Tribune, opponents already have ⁤cried “racial profiling.”

In ‌a Nov. 15 statement following the bill’s passage, the National Immigration Law Center complained of “hatemongering and⁣ intimidation.”

“Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ⁤held that ‌the ​federal government has ⁢the sole ⁣authority to regulate ⁤immigration policy,” ‍the organization ‌said. “The Texas Legislature is ​wrong to have passed it, and Governor ‌Abbott will be wrong if he signs it.

“We call on Texas ​to ⁤abandon this cruel, illegal ‌scheme and recognize that immigrants make Texas and​ our ⁢nation stronger.”

Readers will quickly dismiss that last bit of sentimental and deceitful rubbish. Legal immigrants do indeed ‌“make Texas and our ⁣nation stronger,” but illegal ⁢immigrants do ‌not.

The first line of that passage, however, does pose an apparent problem.

As The Texas Tribune noted, federal courts have ruled that only the federal government may enforce​ immigration ⁢ laws. In 2012, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local police ⁣lacked ⁣the authority to⁤ arrest ‍people based on their immigration status.

Here we have an issue that involves the very nature⁢ of our constitutional structure.

On one hand, when ⁢the federal government operates within its legitimate constitutional sphere, states may not nullify⁢ federal law.‌ Americans settled that⁤ question nearly 200‌ years ago.

On the other hand, what happens when the federal government acts outside its constitutional sphere? James Madison ‌— long ‍recognized as the father of the U.S. Constitution — wrote in 1798 ⁢and again in ⁢ 1800 that the states have‌ an⁣ obligation ‌to protect their ‍citizens when the federal government tramples their liberties.

Texas police may ‍not enforce federal immigration ‌law. ‌No one seriously doubts as much.

The people of Texas, however, have‌ sovereign authority. They⁤ cannot pass a law that conflicts⁢ with federal​ law and⁢ still remain members of the Union. They can, however, ‌pass a ⁢law to protect themselves — a law, in fact,​ that does not conflict with federal laws in any way — when federal ⁢officials such as⁤ President Joe Biden and Secretary of Homeland⁤ Security Alejandro Mayorkas criminally refuse to enforce federal laws.

Americans must⁣ understand that the federal government has no sovereignty⁣ whatsoever. Its only legitimate ‍authority comes directly from the ⁤sovereign people of⁢ the United States.

Likewise — and here we cite Madison’s ⁤lifelong friend and political ally, Thomas Jefferson — federal courts do not ⁢have ultimate authority. They alone cannot tell ⁤us what ⁣the Constitution ‌means. Only​ we⁢ — the sovereign people — have that power.

If the judiciary were to have‍ this kind of authority, Jefferson wrote in⁤ 1819, “then indeed is our constitution a ⁢compleat felo de se” —⁣ that ‌is, a “felon against itself,” an agent of⁤ suicide.

The‌ people of Texas must not violate federal law. ⁤And⁢ they​ must ‌not trample the ⁣rights and liberties ⁤of their ​fellow citizens. But they may ⁤exercise their sovereign authority to protect themselves. And they may do so without seeking permission from any‌ court.

The⁣ post Governor Abbott Reveals⁢ Major Plan to Authorize‍ ‘Every Peace Officer in the State of⁢ Texas’ to Arrest Illegal Immigrants ⁣appeared first⁢ on ‌ The Western Journal.

What are the implications of Texas’s⁢ new ⁢law ​that makes illegally crossing the Texas-Mexico border a state crime?

In a system​ of federalism, power is divided between state and federal governments, allowing for free​ and sovereign citizens. Recently, the Texas state government ‌has⁤ taken a significant step towards upholding freedom ⁣and federalism by introducing a bill that will make illegally crossing the Texas-Mexico ​border a state ⁣crime. Governor Greg​ Abbott announced this decision on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo, stating that he will ‌soon sign the ⁣bill into⁤ law.

The implications of this new​ law are significant. Senate Bill 4, which was approved last month, will authorize Texas police to arrest illegal immigrants on state charges. Illegal crossings between ports of entry⁢ will be classified as a Class B‍ misdemeanor, with a prior conviction elevating the charge to a​ second-degree felony. ⁣However, the law does‌ have‌ limitations, as arrests are ​forbidden in places such ​as secondary schools, churches, and healthcare facilities. Moreover, ​the bill⁤ only focuses on immigrants who have illegally crossed within the ⁣past⁢ two to three years, ensuring⁢ that law enforcement officials do not ​target individuals who arrived prior to⁢ that timeframe.

Unsurprisingly, opponents of the bill have already voiced their concerns, with accusations⁣ of racial profiling ​being one of their main objections. The National Immigration Law Center criticized the legislation, claiming that only the federal government possesses the authority to regulate immigration policy. They argue that Texas should abandon ‌this “cruel” and “illegal” scheme, instead recognizing the contributions of immigrants to the state and nation. However, it is crucial to distinguish between legal⁤ and illegal immigrants; while the former ⁣may indeed strengthen the state ‌and country, ‌the latter do not.

One potential⁢ issue with the bill is ⁤its apparent conflict with federal court rulings, which have⁣ asserted that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws. In 2012, the ‌Supreme Court ruled that local police lacked the‍ authority to arrest individuals based on their immigration status. This raises‍ questions about‍ the constitutional structure and ⁣the balance of power between the federal​ government ⁢and ⁣individual states.

While states cannot nullify federal law when the federal government​ operates within its legitimate constitutional sphere,​ they do have an obligation to protect their citizens when federal actions infringe upon their liberties. As‌ the ​father of the U.S. Constitution, James‍ Madison, stated​ in 1798 and ⁢1800, the states have the authority to safeguard their citizens when the federal ⁣government oversteps its boundaries. While Texas​ police cannot enforce federal immigration law, the state can pass a ⁣law to protect its citizens, as ‍long⁢ as it does not conflict with federal laws.

In conclusion, Texas’s decision to make illegal border crossings a⁣ state crime is a significant victory for freedom and federalism. By empowering the state to enforce its own laws,⁢ Texas is upholding its sovereignty and protecting its citizens. While critics may‍ argue that this law conflicts with federal ⁢authority, it⁢ is important to recognize the balance of power and the states’ obligation to safeguard their citizens. As long‍ as the ⁤state law does not contradict ‍federal laws, it is within the rights ‍of Texas to take‍ necessary action to maintain order and security within its borders.