*Illegally* enter Tx under *state* law? Nope. It is federal law

Texas jurisdiction doesn’t extend beyond state borders. As soon as the bus crosses a state line, they would have to open the doors and let everyone out, or be charged with illegal imprisonment.

A state scarfing up Federal dollars, to enforce a state law, that violates Federal law?

DesertDave and I discussed which states leech off the federal government the most, and Texas actually, almost, takes care of itself. They aren’t net payers, like New York, or California, but they aren’t the welfare queens that some states are.

1 Like

That’s just from the description - and there are a handful of “illegal presence” provisions relating to aliens who have already had deportation proceedings or have been convicted of certain violent crimes and whatnot. But the main crime created by the ordinance is one of illegal entry directly into Texas from a foreign nation.

Again, I think Texas is counting on the threat of long jail sentences to spare them from having to actually deal with imprisoning people. Or rather, I think Texas is counting on this being tied up in court for several years, so they don’t have to worry much about implementing it, but still get the political point they were trying to make.

The bigger point is to stop the legal flow of illegals into the US. We need the labor to stay in Mexico. The Mexican labor shortage is worse than ours.

Now that wouldn’t be pretty if they were at cruising altitude. Hope someone gives them a chute.


Federal appeals court to allow controversial Texas immigration law to take effect, if SCOTUS doesn’t intervene
A federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of a lower court’s decision to block the enforcement of a controversial Texas immigration law, paving the way for it to go into effect this week if the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene…

The law remains blocked only until March 9 unless the Supreme Court keeps it on hold. It was originally set to go into effect March 5.


Supreme Court’s Alito pauses Texas law on illegal border crossings
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Monday temporarily blocked a judicial decision that would let a Texas law take effect to give state officials broad powers to arrest, prosecute and order the removal of people who illegally cross the border from Mexico.

Alito issued his order - requested by Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration - after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday paused a federal judge’s ruling that had blocked the Republican-backed Texas law.


1 Like

Meanwhile, legislation is in the Arizona legislature to legalize shooting trespassers dead. The trespassers do not need to be in the shooter’s home, or threatening the shooter at all. They only need to trespass, as in pulling themselves out of the Rio Grande, and walking across the person’s land.

1 Like

That’s simply not true.

The below link is to the bill. It’s only a few words of change. Basically, it changes the definition of “premises” under which Stand Your Ground applies from the residential structure to the real property generally. It does not modify (much less eliminate) the provision which says that deadly force can only be used in defense of yourself or others. If there is no threat, you cannot shoot at them.


So, open season on politicians. By definition, politicians are always “after” you. Hence, open season on politicians.

The two justification clauses the act references:

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

  • 13-406. Justification; defense of a third person*

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.

With various “thought leaders” telling their flock that this is an “invasion”, and the “invaders” are mental patients, convicts, rapists, drug dealers, there is plenty of latitude for people to think the need for their defense is immediate.



The definition of a politician in TX.


No. I mean, they might mistakenly come to that conclusion - but they’ll be guilty of murder. The law hasn’t changed on that respect.

This sort of thing happens all the time with legislative proposals. There will be a bill, someone will write that the bill “might” do X (under the most implausible reading of the bill), and then the story gets legs that the legislature is considering doing X-plus. This bill is a material change, in that it extends the area in which one no longer has a duty to safely retreat from an attacker. Previously it was in your home - if this is adopted, it’s anywhere on your property. But it does not authorize killing migrants just for trespass. And it’s just misinformation to claim it does.

1 Like

You don’t think a land owner confronting an illegal trying to cross his property would never, ever, escalate to a shooting? The local Detroit news reported, a few days ago, that three local road rage incidents had escalated to shootouts, in the past week.

Of course. That’s one of the downsides of any stand your ground type law. When confronted with a threat, the party who is lawfully in their own home is relieved of any legal duty to retreat. That makes it more likely that there will be a confrontation. If the physical scope of that stand your ground area is expanded, of course you’ll increase the probability of confrontations that could have been avoided by retreat.

But the proposed change to the law doesn’t do anything close to what people are claiming it does. It’s pure misinformation and fear-mongering.


I would agree with a hypothetical that the change does not legalize sitting in a concealed position, with a rifle, and killing anyone that comes into view.

But confronting a person trying to come across, being determined to force them back across the border, and that person being equally determined to enter the US, will result in a confrontation, with a high probability of escalation to shooting.


But the bill doesn’t just let you camp out on the border and “force them back.” It applies to your residential property. Except in the rare circumstances where someone’s residential property immediately abuts the border, this just isn’t applicable.

So while the threat of border confrontations escalating to violence is very real, if private citizens are trying to use self-help to prevent crossings, this bill doesn’t really change anything about that. And if anything, critics of the bill misrepresenting what it does (“A bill allowing Arizona ranchers to kill border crossers…”) exacerbates that problem perhaps even more than the bill itself.

A 20-year-old woman was shot and killed after her friend turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York, officials say | CNN

albaby1, I know you’re a lawyer, and a stickler for the finest details of the law. You are a very rational person, and I can truly see you making the correct decision in a possible " stand your ground " situation.

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of Americans who cannot be trusted to make the right decision. So giving these people the “right” to take any perceived threat as a possible life or death struggle, better start spraying lead, is pretty weak, imo. And yeah, the nutjob in my link will go to jail. But his victim ain’t coming back. And the nutjob used lethal force because he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.

( and I own guns, and know how to shoot, so not anti-gun. Still rag on a couple of people I know who told me way back in 2007/2008 that if a certain someone gets elected, be prepared to have my hunting rifles confiscated. I love pointing out to them that I still have all of them, and ask them if theirs have been taken away. they don’t respond much to that, lol )


Might go to jail. Might. I can think of one guy named Kyle who belongs in jail, but isn’t.

1 Like

No, he was sentenced to 25 years to life. And the judge was particularly scathing when announcing the sentence. Apparently the guy had no remorse.



That same argument can be used by the migrants who have guns. If they think they are being threatened, then they can “shoot to kill” because self-defense is a valid defense.