Biden Admin: Sanctuary States are Legal, but Illegal for Texas to Stop COVID Illegal Alien Traffickers
After the Biden admin and its non-profit “partners” dumped infected COVID illegal aliens in Texas, Governor Abbott took action to ban the transport of illegal aliens into Texas. The media responded by treating the non-profits, including one nun, as heroes.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
During the pandemic, Democrats had shut down political protests against the lockdowns because they endangered “public health”. Churches and synagogues were shut down.
If the First Amendment could be throttled because of public health concerns, could a state actually ban transporting illegal aliens infected with the virus into Texas?
The Biden administration insists that Texas can’t.
In a letter to Abbott, Garland claimed the governor’s order was “dangerous” as well as “contrary to federal law and cannot be enforced.” The attorney general also claimed the order was unconstitutional, as it “interferes with [federal] immigration enforcement” and obstructs the “release of individuals and the ability of those individuals to comply with federal immigration law.”
Garland concluded the letter by declaring that if Abbott did not rescind his order, the attorney general would “pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government.”
Abbott’s order did not interfere with any government transport. And the vast majority of the illegal aliens never show up for their court dates or to an ICE office.
So the only function of the federal government being interfered with is its right to release illegal aliens. And even that’s not being interfered with because the Abbott order only interferes with third parties transporting illegal aliens.
The order, enacted Wednesday, prohibits anyone except federal, state and local law enforcement officials from transporting illegal immigrants detained attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. It also authorizes the stoppage of any vehicle “on reasonable suspicion” that it is violating the order.
Abbott’s order carefully excluded the government. We’re not yet at the point of direct confrontation though during the pandemic some states deployed their national guardsmen to prevent federal authorities from seizing stockpiles of protective equipment.
Garland claims that the order would “jeopardize the health and safety of noncitizens in federal government custody” essentially admitting that these aliens are infected.
His argument is that the federal government can prioritize the health and safety of infected illegal aliens over Americans living in Texas.
It’s a horrifying argument politically, but it’s meant for a legal forum.
Additionally, because federal law requires individuals processed for release to appear before immigration courts or report to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices throughout the country, the Order directly interferes with the implementation of federal immigration law.
That part is obvious nonsense.
Not only are Biden’s illegal aliens not reporting to ICE offices, but there are such offices all over the country. Not just in Texas. And if Garland and Biden really care about illegal aliens reporting, the best way to do that is not to release them to begin with.
Garland then goes on to argue that a Catholic charity can be considered federal officials. That would have some interesting implications for the separation of church and state.
The United States advances its immigration and public health functions in Texas through a variety of federal officials, contractors, and grantees. Some federal officials who work in Texas on behalf of agencies including the Department of Health & Human Services, the Department ofHomeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency may not be considered “law-enforcement official[ s ]” exempted from the Order. But, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a state may not interfere with or obstruct these federal officials in the performance of their duties
Garland then effectively argues that all the illegal alien non-profit traffickers are exempt from state laws.
Likewise, Texas cannot regulate the operations of private parties performing tasks on behalf of the United States.
If that were the case, then there would be no United States. Just the State. Federal contractors are not exempt from state laws. Nor has Congress passed any laws mandating the release of illegal aliens infected with COVID into Texas.
That’s a Biden decision. And the decision can be challenged.
But Garland finally goes back to the old Obama defense in which states can interfere with ICE, by declaring themselves to be sanctuary states, but can’t interfere with illegal alien traffickers funded by the Biden administration.
Moreover, Texas has no authority to interfere with the United States’ “broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration” by impairing the United States’ release of individuals and the ability of those individuals to comply with federal immigration law. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 395–416 (2012). To the extent the Order interferes with immigration enforcement, the Order is unconstitutional.
Since Garland isn’t enforcing immigration, the claim is meaningless, but don’t tell that to Justice Roberts.
Still, if the Biden administration wants to get into this contest with Abbott, there’s all sorts of things that governments and states can do to interfere with operations. In Los Angeles, businesses that refused to close for the pandemic had their power and water shut off.
But this may prove to be a contest between the wide latitude offered to Democrats when promoting illegal migration and the wide latitude offered to public officials over the pandemic.
Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield