Good morning, and welcome to the Epoch Times News Brief for Wednesday, March 20, 2024. I’m Bill Thomas.
Yesterday, we received a flurry of comments on the contentious issue of firearms access for illegal immigrants. At the end of today’s program, we'll share some of those representative comments.
Texas Gov. Abbott Says ‘Buoys Remain in River’ After Supreme Court Order
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday he will continue to enforce state border policies coming after the Supreme Court temporarily blocked enforcement of an immigration law that would allow state law enforcement to arrest suspected illegal immigrants.A lower court had ruled against the law, known as SB4, which was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has halted the law for the third time. Mr. Abbott wrote on X that Texas “is still using its authority to arrest illegal immigrants for criminal trespass and other violations of law,” adding that the state has continued building the wall and using National Guard troops to erect razor wire barriers, and buoys remained in the Rio Grande River. The reference to buoys relates to a barrier set up in the border area to prevent illegal crossings.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also urged the Supreme Court to allow the law to go into effect, citing concerns of invasion by illegal immigrants and cartel members.
“To the Supreme Court justices who are watching Fox, I’m sure this morning as they get up early, we are being attacked ... by land, by sea, by air, literally millions coming across the border, many armed, many criminals, terrorists,” Mr. Patrick told Fox News. He added that there have also been reports of drones at the U.S.–Mexico border that are “spying” on the United States to “help send drugs and illegal immigrants across the border.”
Mr. Abbott and other Texas Republicans have been critical of the Biden administration’s border policies, saying they’ve only led to a surge in illegal immigration into the United States and Texas.
The White House has shifted the blame, saying the surge in border crossings is due to a “broken” system that can be remedied if Congress passes the appropriate laws. But Republicans and former President Donald Trump have said the president has the authority to fix the system.
Tensions remain between Texas and the Biden administration. In the border city of Eagle Pass, Texas, National Guard members have prevented Border Patrol agents from accessing a riverfront park. Other Republican governors have expressed support for Mr. Abbott, pledging to send state National Guard members to help with border efforts in Texas.
Meanwhile, arrests for illegal crossings along the southern border fell by half in January from record highs in December. Border Patrol officials attributed the shift to seasonal declines and heightened enforcement by the United States and its allies.
US Supreme Court Allows Texas to Enforce Illegal Immigration Law
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Texas to enforce SB4, which permits the arrest of suspected illegal immigrants by local law enforcement officials.The Biden Department of Justice had requested an emergency stay on the law, arguing that it violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Justice Alito halted SB4 on Monday, but on Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to enforce the law. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh provided concurring opinions, while Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
SB4 was passed by the Republican-controlled state Legislature last year and signed into law by Gov. Abbott in late December. The law allows local and state police to arrest people who have illegally crossed the U.S.–Mexico border and imposes criminal penalties. State judges are also given the power to order illegal immigrants to be deported under the measure.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote on social media Tuesday that his state notched a “huge win” and that the law “is now in effect.”
A federal judge previously blocked the law, asserting that it superseded federal authority over immigration. The judge ruled that SB4 violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause and would undermine federal directives.
However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law before it was appealed to the Supreme Court. The case is set to be heard on April 3 by the 5th Circuit. The Biden administration argues that SB4 is incompatible with Supreme Court precedent and should be struck down.
Americans have expressed increasing concern over illegal immigration, with many considering it a top issue. A poll released in late February found that six in 10 Americans believe illegal immigration is a “very serious” problem and that a majority support the construction of a border wall, a policy that has long been championed by President Trump. While in office, the 45th president constructed around 450 miles of barrier along the U.S.–Mexico border.
Supreme Court Grants Illegal Immigrants More Opportunities to Avoid Deportation
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to allow a lower court to review and potentially overturn an immigration judge’s decision to deport an illegal immigrant. This ruling could have implications for the removal of criminal aliens.In a 6–3 split decision on March 19, the Supreme Court said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination by an immigration judge.
The case involved a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago named Situ Wilkinson, who had overstayed his tourist visa and was facing deportation. Mr. Wilkinson argued that his 7-year-old son, who had a serious medical condition, would suffer exceptional hardship if he were deported. The immigration judge denied Mr. Wilkinson’s request for relief from deportation, and this decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that it lacked the jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary hardship determination. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the determination was a mixed question of law and fact and therefore reviewable by a court. This ruling allows for more judicial review of immigration judges’ deportation decisions. Some argue that this could cause delays in removal proceedings for criminal aliens.
Justice Alito dissented, stating he doubts that Congress intended “questions of law” to “sweep so broadly” and that a maximalist reading is incorrect.
He and the other dissenting justices argued that when Congress granted courts the jurisdiction to review cancellation-of-removal determinations when “questions of law” arose, they didn’t mean to adopt a “maximalist understanding of ‘questions of law’” that could unreasonably delay the conclusion of removal proceedings for illegal immigrants.
Billionaire Investor to Back Donald Trump 2024
Billionaire activist investor Nelson Peltz plans to vote for President Trump in the 2024 presidential race due to concerns about President Joe Biden’s mental condition and immigration policies.Mr. Peltz expressed his worry about President Biden’s “scary” mental condition and the porous U.S. southern border, stating that the country has an immigration problem that requires boundaries.
Illegal immigration has been a contentious issue for both Republicans and Democrats, with the Biden administration’s policies facing criticism. Mr. Peltz, founder of Trian Fund Management, has an estimated net worth of $1.7 billion and is among President Trump’s Palm Beach neighbors.
It is not clear whether he will donate to President Trump’s campaign.
Mr. Peltz has been involved in activist investments, recently focusing on Disney, with whom his firm Trian has been in a proxy battle. Mr. Peltz aims to “restore the magic” at Disney, while criticizing the company’s board for poor oversight and performance.
In regard to President Biden’s mental acuity, Mr. Peltz expressed uncertainty about what the president knows and who speaks for him.
President Biden’s mental capabilities have been a topic of discussion, with concerns raised about his age and memory. However, the White House and President Biden himself have disputed these concerns.
Trump Sues ABC News, Host George Stephanopoulos for Defamation
President Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against the American Broadcasting Companies (ABC) and ABC News host George Stephanopoulos. The lawsuit claims that Mr. Stephanopoulos defamed President Trump by repeatedly stating on an episode of “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” that a jury found President Trump liable for the rape of writer E. Jean Carroll.The complaint argues that Mr. Stephanopoulos made these false statements with knowledge of the truth, and that they were intended to harm President Trump. The lawsuit also suggests that Mr. Stephanopoulos’s statements were prepared in advance and were read from notes.
The alleged incident at the center of the lawsuit occurred during an interview between Mr. Stephanopoulos and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who was discussing her support for President Trump. Mr. Stephanopoulos questioned Ms. Mace about her endorsement despite the jury’s verdict in President Trump’s civil case involving Ms. Carroll. Ms. Mace accused Mr. Stephanopoulos of attempting to shame her as a rape victim and expressed her disgust with his line of questioning.
During this exchange, the more that Mr. Stephanopoulos defended himself against Ms. Mace’s accusations of shaming her, the more he repeated statements such as that President Trump was “found liable for rape.”
However, the jury found that Ms. Carroll failed to prove her rape allegation, instead making a finding of sexual assault. President Trump has maintained his denial of the allegations. This verdict is currently being appealed.
Following the interview, Ms. Mace stated that she would not do another ABC interview. ABC declined to comment on the matter.
We’re almost out of time, but before we go, if today’s your birthday, you’re celebrating with actor, singer, and musician Hal Linden, who is 93. Movie director Spike Lee is 67. And Academy Award-winning actress Holly Hunter was born on this very day in 1958, which makes her 66.
Mr. Mensink writes in to say: “I would appreciate some coverage on the constitutionality of the use of the census to establish congressional and electoral college seating. Could the census be mandated to include determinations of citizenship status within the counts?” Great question and a great story idea, which has now been forwarded to our editors.
Also, a lot of reaction to a story we brought to you yesterday regarding an illegal immigrant charged with carrying a semi-automatic pistol despite knowing that he was unlawfully in the United States. A U.S. district judge dismissed his case, ruling that the law banning illegal immigrants from possessing guns violated the Second Amendment. A number of people sent us their comments, and while we can’t get to all of them, here are a few responses to a real critical story.
Bob wrote in to say: “Illegal immigrants have zero constitutional rights. They don’t belong here. America is fed up with this corrupt government. That judge should be put on a bus with the illegal alien and shipped out of this country.”
Tom checked in to say: “If he’s illegal, how did he ‘legally’ get a gun? Background check??? Absolutely insane. ”
Jack shared this with us: “This proves that if you are a CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, then your rights are SECONDARY to the 10,000,000 ILLEGALS!!”
As we wrap up today’s program, we invite you to share your thoughts and comments on today’s topics. Your insights enrich our conversations and help us cover the issues that matter most to you. Thank you for joining us today, and we look forward to hearing your perspectives.
Stay safe, stay informed, and have a great day!
