Governor Abbott Will Build Texas’ Own Border Wall

[DadSmith]

C’mon Dave. You’re reaching for any way for Texas to get away with what they’re trying to do because you like what they’re trying to do. You’re arguing ‘should’, and I’m only saying what is.

To arrest someone for trespassing, okay fine. Some illegal immigrant comes across the border and into a persons land. The proper signage is up. Fine arrest the person. Then what?

The state cannot enforce its own immigration policy. It sucks that they get ****ed by an inept administration. It just is what it is.

State law in Texas if someone trespassing on your property you can use whatever force is necessary to stop them. Deadly force can be used if absolutely necessary.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.41 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code PENAL TX PENAL Section 9.41. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

A Texas property owner can forcefully remove trespassers, if the trespassers get violent they can be shot by land owner.

 

[jamil]

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. The state can prohibit entry onto state or private anywhere in the state. So long as they don't try closing official federal border crossings, I dont see a viable legal argument.

I just reviewed the Constitution. It grants the federal government authority to establish rules on naturalization but is silent on the subject of patrolling the border.

You have to consider more than what's written in the constitution. There's also case law. The courts have ruled that the federal government has sole jurisdiction on matters of immigration and borders. The state cannot make it's own immigration policy. The executive branch of the federal government does that.

 

[jamil]

State law in Texas if someone trespassing on your property you can use whatever force is necessary to stop them. Deadly force can be used if absolutely necessary.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.41 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code PENAL TX PENAL Section 9.41. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

A Texas property owner can forcefully remove trespassers, if the trespassers get violent they can be shot by land owner.

Okay. Let's see what happens if Texas land owners start shooting illegal immigrants.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The FedGov only controls a 60 foot wide strip from the US-Mexico border inland in Cali, AZ and New Mexico. It is even less than that in Texas. I think you could build a nice wall 70 feet inside the border and the Feds couldn't say jack about it

From the wiki

The Roosevelt Reservation is the 60-foot (18 m)-wide strip of land owned by the United States Federal Government along the United States side of the United States–Mexico Border in three of the four border states. Federal and tribal lands make up 632 miles (1,017 km), or approximately 33 percent, of the nearly 2,000 miles (3,200 km) total. Private and state-owned lands constitute the remaining 67 percent of the border, most of which is located in Texas.

In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt in a Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) established the reservation in order to keep all public lands along the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico "free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico" Texas was excluded because Texas retained all public lands upon the Texas annexation and admittance as a state, much of which has been sold over the years to private parties.

Yep. Build it 75 feet inside. They can still technically enter the US, but cant get into the rest of TX. LOL

 

[DadSmith]

Okay. Let's see what happens if Texas land owners start shooting illegal immigrants.

Did you not read the law? Deadly force is only allowed if the trespassers get violent. However, they are allowed to man handle them off their property I would also say point a gun at them if necessary. Texas is way different than Indiana in trespassing law.

 

[gregr]

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. The state can prohibit entry onto state or private anywhere in the state. So long as they don't try closing official federal border crossings, I dont see a viable legal argument.

I just reviewed the Constitution. It grants the federal government authority to establish rules on naturalization but is silent on the subject of patrolling the border.

When it is a matter of National Security, the feds not only may step in, but they MUST step in.

 

[IndyDave1776]

When it is a matter of National Security, the feds not only may step in, but they MUST step in.

But they aren't.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You have to consider more than what's written in the constitution. There's also case law. The courts have ruled that the federal government has sole jurisdiction on matters of immigration and borders. The state cannot make it's own immigration policy. The executive branch of the federal government does that.

This is NOT immigration policy. It is control of trespassing, therefore a property rights issue. This is no different than me building a wall around my farm.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Okay. Let's see what happens if Texas land owners start shooting illegal immigrants.

Alamo 2.0

 

[BugI02]

That’s incredibly nutty.

Walls are infrastructure. What's a Texas sized share of $6 trillion?

 

[BugI02]

I am inclined to believe that would work out to the federal government being able to choose to let them in proper border crossings or not with no authority to determine whether it not pedestrian traffic is allowed on state or private land.

Agreed. Certainly fodder for endless legal wrangling

 

[IndyDave1776]

Walls are infrastructure. What's a Texas sized share of $6 trillion?

About $4.8T?

 

[BugI02]

There’s no doubt that a state cannot enforce their own border patrol. That is exclusively a federal power. But you bring up an interesting question. Can Texas legally prevent people from entering from, say, Arkansas? I suspect they can’t

Seems to me we had a number ofl instances of testing the waters with states prohibiting travel from other states thought to be hotbeds of covid or requiring quarantine when coming in from those states

 

[BugI02]

You have to consider more than what's written in the constitution. There's also case law. The courts have ruled that the federal government has sole jurisdiction on matters of immigration and borders. The state cannot make it's own immigration policy. The executive branch of the federal government does that.

Does Federal and case law require crossing at designated crossing points? If so, it would be tough to see how Texas would be going against Federal law. It could set up a situation where the lefties in congress would have to overtly specify that illegals can cross the US border anywhere they want in order to spite Texas. That might be a look not to many other than the hard core would want to sign off on

Seems to me as long as Texas is only enforcing Texas law on Texas land they're good to go, it just takes someone with the balls to hold FedGov's feet to the fire

 

[jamil]

Did you not read the law? Deadly force is only allowed if the trespassers get violent. However, they are allowed to man handle them off their property I would also say point a gun at them if necessary. Texas is way different than Indiana in trespassing law.

Did you read my statement?

 

[jamil]

This is NOT immigration policy. It is control of trespassing, therefore a property rights issue. This is no different than me building a wall around my farm.

You can spin it however you want. I think the courts will see through that.

 

[jamil]

Seems to me we had a number ofl instances of testing the waters with states prohibiting travel from other states thought to be hotbeds of covid or requiring quarantine when coming in from those states

I'd liked to have seen such travel bans challenged in court. But maybe that's a subject for the covid threads.

 

[jamil]

Does Federal and case law require crossing at designated crossing points? If so, it would be tough to see how Texas would be going against Federal law. It could set up a situation where the lefties in congress would have to overtly specify that illegals can cross the US border anywhere they want in order to spite Texas. That might be a look not to many other than the hard core would want to sign off on

This is an issue of enforcement.

Seems to me as long as Texas is only enforcing Texas law on Texas land they're good to go, it just takes someone with the balls to hold FedGov's feet to the fire

Arizona tried to enforce Arizona law and they lost that one.

All I'm saying is that I doubt this is going to pan out the way you want. Regardless how much you guys like what Abbott's proposed, whether it'll survive the law suits that are certain to come, is what it is, regardless of how much you like it.

 

[DadSmith]

Did you read my statement?

And I replied to your statement. How many illegals are going to not walk away from an armed landowner? If they attack him he then has a right to fire at them. He has a right to force trespassers off his property one way or another. He does not have to call the police or sheriff office to force trespassers off his property. If he shoots one or more he will have to call law enforcement in,, but not until then. He is totally protected by Texas law.

 

[DadSmith]

You can spin it however you want. I think the courts will see through that.

So you own a 700 acre ranch in Texas you have hundreds of illegals going #2 all over your property, and leaving trash all over it or where ever they trespassed. You don't think the you have a right to stop that? There is no spin it's called protection of your property.