Patrick Spurlock

Your post appears to be misleading. The last three published bills signed into law were not bans on commonly owned weapons, but bills prohibiting assault style weapons and high capacity magazines (these are NOT commonly owned weapons such as regular rifles and pistols) from hospitals and colleges while authorizing law enforcement and cadets permission.

🚨BREAKING🚨 Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has signed the ban on commonly-owned firearms and standard capacity magazines. Gun Owners of America will be filing its lawsuit to challenge this ban tomorrow.

@scotus_wire onward to an appeal...

🚨 A federal judge has declined to immediately block Tennessee's new Republican-drawn congressional map.

@KenPaxtonTX Apparently @KenPaxtonTX is jumping the gun on his investigation and possibly breaking the law while doing it. #officialoppression, #politicaloppression

BREAKING: I'm investigating the Dallas County Sheriff for sanctuary policies and demanding that the Sheriff comply with Texas law by seeking an agreement to assist ICE in enforcing federal immigration law.

@CSexton25 needs to be aware that his actions are potentially challengeable constitutionally if evidence shows retaliatory, discriminatory, or viewpoint-based punishment rather than neutral enforcement of decorum rules. This situation is somewhat analogous to the 2023 expulsion fight involving Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, where the legislature exercised broad disciplinary power but faced intense constitutional and political criticism. It is this 2023 expulsion together with @Csexton25's recent actions that form a suspicious/question history that shadows the Speaker of the Tennessee House causing the questionabilty of whether his actions are potentially constitutionally challengeable in Court.

Tennessee’s Speaker of the House @CSexton25 just removed elected Democrats from ALL committees due to their disruptive, disrespectful behavior during the session to redraw Tennessee’s congressional map. Good. They aren’t entitled to be on committees. Fantastic work @tnhousegop!

@AJNoiter @VikkiGoodwinTX The fact that you blocked me tells me everything I need to know. This is a simple issue of one believing law over ideology and the other believing ideology over law. We will only agree to disagree - nothing more!

@AJNoiter @VikkiGoodwinTX Then you completely missed it the legal point I made.

Today I joined Congressman Casar to advocate for Texas doing the right thing for 18-year-old Austin high school senior, Luis Fernando Cabrera. Luis was pulled over on his way home from work and turned over to ICE. He has not committed any crime, and yet sits in a cell in the Carnes jail. He is a soccer player, a classmate, a brother, and a young person awaiting a ruling in his asylum case. His friends and family should be celebrating graduation with him, not wondering whether they will see him again. I stood next to his Priest and learned about his character. This is not justice, and it does not make our communities safer. Luis deserves to be home with his family. He has followed the rules. Texas leaders should do the right thing and release him so he can graduate, and continue down the path to citizenship.

Read one of the most important provisions of the asylum statute which is § 1158(a)(1): “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival …), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum…” Showing up at the port of entry itself doesn't grant entry, but surrendering to port authorities and requesting asylum does legally grant entry at the authority's discretion. Most of Obama's deportations may have been denials of entry, but Cabrera's appears to have not been a denial. You misread my post. Let me clarify: What I meant by "accepted" and "pending" was that he application was accepted for processing at the port of entry and is currently pending a decision by USCIS.

@RealPatSpurlock @jimiAlva820 @VikkiGoodwinTX No. Showing up at a port of entry does NOT grant entry, even if you're claiming asylum. Look to your messiah for facts on that - most of Obama's "deportations" were denials of entry AT THOSE POINTS OF ENTRY.

The problem here is that people believe that arriving and surrendering oneself at a port of entry requesting asylum is improper entry, however it is in fact legal according to federal law. What is not legal is entry into the US between ports. The fact that Cabrera's asylum was accepted and pending indicates that his entry was in fact proper.

@RealPatSpurlock @jimiAlva820 @VikkiGoodwinTX That's not correct. Improper entry does not depend on whether or not the person has or plans to claim asylum. He is here illegally.

@AJNoiter @rational_please @VikkiGoodwinTX Wrong. Given how backed up our immigration system is, it is possible that after 7 years he could still be waiting. So you're saying that federal law itself is wrong about asylum? What Federal statute conflicts with Asylum law?

@RealPatSpurlock @rational_please @VikkiGoodwinTX He came across the border 7 years ago. His asylum case is pending. Let me put 2 and 2 together for you: he didn't enter legally. It doesn't take 7 years to get a ruling on an asylum claim. He's here illegally. You're welcome.

Expired Registration isn't a 14th amendment violation, (I actually meant the 4th amendment) but you must refer to Rodriguez v. United States, which ruled that once the traffic mission was completed, the continued detention violated the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the question is: did the continued detention after the traffic mission (expired registration) in fact violate the 4th amendment? The case centered on the: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Court had to decide: Can police extend a traffic stop for unrelated criminal investigation without separate reasonable suspicion? The Court said no. Question: Does an ICE (civil) warrant create reasonable suspicion? No, some Federal Courts have previously made that decision.

@RealPatSpurlock @VikkiGoodwinTX He was pulled over for expired registration.. so no, not a 14th Amendment violation.

@jimiAlva820 @VikkiGoodwinTX If he applied for asylum, then he isn't technically here illegally. People keep forgetting that surrendering at a port of entry and applying for asylum is legal in the US.

@VikkiGoodwinTX He hasn’t committed a crime? Being here illegally is a crime.

@rational_please @VikkiGoodwinTX According to the report, he applied for asylum. If this was done at a port of entry, then he did NOT come across the borderly illegally as he is protected under Federal law.

@VikkiGoodwinTX Just to be clear, did he intentionally commit a major crime by coming across the border illegally, with or without his parents? Yes or no

You're forgetting the chaos CREATED BY ICE agents. You're forgetting the bodyslams onto floors, into walls that are documented on videos; people killed by ICE/CBP agents simply because these agents failed to de-escalate situations where killing was NOT necessary. This legislation, which may appear to be unnecessary, would serve two purposes: 1. It would give these immigrant applicants peace of mind by making their appointments in a timely manner while not worrying about the inherent risk of detention by ICE for no reason. 2. It will serve as a reminder to ICE that they need to address the flaws and accountability in their system that is evident with each incorrect and likely illegal detention/apprehension that they have previously committed.

@RepGraceMeng The only chaos has been created by Democratic politicians with sanctuary laws looking to circumvent our immigration laws and to dox Homeland Security agents.

ICE agents have been causing chaos in our communities for months. Law-abiding immigrants are being detained at routine check-ins—that’s not enforcement, it’s intimidation. My Safe Check-ins for Immigrants Act would ensure a safe, secure way for people to meet requirements and pursue legal status without fear.

Here's the deal: It is entirely possible that this school was NOT breaking the law. Texas American Muslim University is a DBA. If their documentation identifies the actual institution using the DBA which is, "Texas American Institute for Technology at Dallas" , then the school may in fact be legitimate.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott just ordered the shutdown of the illegal “Texas American Muslim University” (TexAM) in Dallas. The school was advertising and enrolling students in STEM degrees without the required state Certificate of Authority or proper credentials. This isn’t a ban on Muslim education — it’s enforcing the same rules that apply to everyone to protect students from diploma mills. What do YOU think — should every “university” have to follow the law? Do you support Abbott? 🧵

Interestingly, It doesn't appear that TexAM, other than failing to formally register the DBA as a school with the state, has violated any laws. On their website they identify as, "TexasAM University at Dallas", but at the bottom in the Website's footer is the following statement: "Texas American Institute for Technology at Dallas is a non-profit organization, registered with the Secretary of State of Texas, USA. It operates under the DBA (Doing Business As) name Texas American Muslim University at Dallas." As long as that Identifier is located on all forms and letters, there shouldn't be an issue since proves there is no intent to misidentify. Also in the disclaimer, the DBA is identified as "Texas American Muslim University at Dallas", not TexAM. TexAM just appears to be the abbreviated form of the name on its website but it still includes the name "University at Dallas" which differentiates from "Texas A&M" meaning no actual intent of impersonation present.

NEW: Texas A&M University System has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Muslim “TexAM University,” objecting to their use of the A&M name and branding. A&M says “TexAM,” “Texas AM University,” and similar branding creates public confusion and falsely suggests affiliation with Texas A&M.

@realmitchlittle @realmitchlittle: If you research the tactics in 1950's "Massive Resistance" you will find that Abbott's and Paxton's actions identify with at least 3 or more of them. This makes Abbott and Paxton undoubtedly and questionably suspicious.

Citing the Quran back to us in response to Texas law is sort of the problem and almost a little too on-the-nose, don’t you think?

@bwaltens makes a very compelling argument. Let's compare and understand what "Massive Resistance was: "Massive Resistance" was not random local backlash. It was a coordinated state-level strategy to preserve racial hierarchy while appearing to act through law and procedure rather than open defiance alone. Its political legacy is important because many of its methods—using administrative rules, funding mechanisms, procedural delay, and claims of local control to resist federal civil-rights enforcement—became recurring tools in later political conflicts. That’s why historians often treat Massive Resistance as one of the clearest examples of how governments can use formally legal processes to obstruct constitutional rights. Now let's compare Abbott's Tactics to "Massive Resistance's" tactics: The tactics generally fell into legal obstruction, political defiance, economic pressure, and intimidation. 1. Closing public schools rather than integrating them. 2. “Tuition grants” / voucher schemes for segregated private schools - Abbott pushed for Vouchers in Texas to use public education dollars for parents to move their child out of a public school they think isn’t working and put that money toward private school, homeschooling, tutoring, or other education expenses. 3. Pupil placement laws 4. State interposition / nullification claims - 5. Defying federal court orders 6. White Citizens’ Councils (“respectable” resistance) 7. Harassment and intimidation - Classic Example: Texas various methods of attacking EPIC City (investigations, multiple lawsuits, etc.) would constitute harrassment/intimidation as well as the recent intimidation against Grand Prairie, and and CAIR demonstrate Abbott's and Paxton's harassment and intimidation against the muslim community. 8. Delay through endless litigation - Texas multiple investigations and lawsuits against cities violating SB4 and the multiple lawsuits against the muslim community support the theory and fact that Texas has used endless litigation as a tactic for coercion. @GregAbbottTX has used some of these tactics and their use is quite evident thus supporting @bwaltens' claim. Hard not to notice.

Foreign terrorist organization CAIR accuses @GregAbbott_TX of using “Massive Resistance” tactics after Grand Prairie canceled the controversial Muslims-only event at Epic Waters

Tom Homan just dodged the question entirely as he knows what the answer is. He states that, “If you’re in the country illegally, you got a problem.", but he neglected to say that DACA (Dreamers) are in fact authorized to be in the country and DACA affords them protection from detention and deportation. To detain them and remove them violates that very DACA policy which is actual Federal Law. If that weren't the case, the courts would have completely terminated the program entirely and they didn't.

🚨 Tom Homan just shut it down: REPORTER: Are Dreamers with DACA status deportation targets? TOM HOMAN: “If you’re in the country illegally, you got a problem. Amnesty is off the table.”

Your missing the pretense and purpose of my question. Maybe I should have clarified better. I am attempting to check the governor on his "selective targeting of a specific community which also risks violating Federal Law - specifically our US Constitution which is also a major problem.

No Christian would ever do such a thing why do you think the doors were open to all in the 1st place? Do you think if Christian’s attempted this in their country this could down? That tell you there it’s wrong! It’s not right period! Jesus is Love! The USA is Love many are not showing us the same!!! Bottom Line! Hate is not welcome here! Not even in Heaven!!! #psalm91

A city-owned water park in Grand Prairie openly advertised a "MUSLIMS ONLY" event -- closed to the general public. That's religious discrimination. It's unconstitutional. I signed HB 4211 into law -- banning Muslim only no-go zones in Texas. The City must cancel the event and commit to never allowing something like it again by May 11th, or lose $530,000 in state grants. Let this be a lesson to local officials: Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.