A judge blocked the enforcement of the law? Send a couple hundred to his drive way.
aggiehawg said:Until SCOTUS rules it isn't. Is that going to happen here? IDK.Quote:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
PaulsBunions said:
I like Reagan but a lot of his decisions are really aging like milk nowadays
WT FOX said:CDUB98 said:Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.Quote:
Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...
Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.
Look, everyone knows I am a conservative and extremely right on illegal immigration. I am in favor of utilizing deadly force to stop illegal border crossings.
But this is not an apples to apples comparison. The sanctuary city laws just prevent local and state law enforcement from assisting the feds in enforcing federal immigration laws. Essentially taking away the choke points where the feds normally grab criminal aliens, like jails, court, and probation/parole. If DHS wanted to deploy 100k ICE agents to round every illegal in NYC, there isn't dick the state or locals could do about it.
Texas is actually wanting to utilize state and local law enforcement to essentially enforce federal immigration law since the feds have largely abdicated that role during the Biden administration.
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
Ags4DaWin said:WT FOX said:CDUB98 said:Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.Quote:
Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...
Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.
Look, everyone knows I am a conservative and extremely right on illegal immigration. I am in favor of utilizing deadly force to stop illegal border crossings.
But this is not an apples to apples comparison. The sanctuary city laws just prevent local and state law enforcement from assisting the feds in enforcing federal immigration laws. Essentially taking away the choke points where the feds normally grab criminal aliens, like jails, court, and probation/parole. If DHS wanted to deploy 100k ICE agents to round every illegal in NYC, there isn't dick the state or locals could do about it.
Texas is actually wanting to utilize state and local law enforcement to essentially enforce federal immigration law since the feds have largely abdicated that role during the Biden administration.
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
Actually the constitution is clear that setting immigration/naturalization law is the purview of the federal government specifically congress.
Enforcement however......
What we have never really had is a president that refuses to enforce the laws on the books to the detriment of the states to this degree.
Importantly, though, Alito only partially dissented. He agreed with the majority that Arizona could not make it a state misdemeanor for an alien to not register per federal law.aggiehawg said:Arizona v. U.S.Quote:
In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the first, second, and fourth provisions of SB 1070 were preempted by federal immigration law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito each wrote separate dissenting opinions. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.
LINK
Composition of the Court has changed.
Quote:
I also agree with the Court that 3 is pre-empted by virtue of our decision in Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). Our conclusion in that case that Congress had enacted an "all-embracing system" of alien registration and that States cannot "enforce additional or auxiliary regulations," id., at 6667, 74, forecloses Arizona's attempt here to impose additional, state-law penalties for violations of the federal registration scheme.
That would depend entirely upon the "sanctuary city" law in question, now wouldn't it? Some of them may indeed violate the Constitution. Others may not.1836er said:Hmm. Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...CDUB98 said:
Reality is that the TX arrest law was never going to survive. While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of Texas taking control and kicking people out, the simple fact is that, per the Constitution, immigration is a Federal matter.
Well-explained.TXAggie2011 said:
Sanctuary cities fall under a different Constitutional posture. Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force a state (or sub-state governments such as cities) to enforce federal laws.
Therefore, a city is able to say "we're not going to cooperate/enforce federal laws."
Wanna bet he'll find a way around that?TXAggie2011 said:Importantly, though, Alito only partially dissented. He agreed with the majority that Arizona could not make it a state misdemeanor for an alien to not register per federal law.aggiehawg said:Arizona v. U.S.Quote:
In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the first, second, and fourth provisions of SB 1070 were preempted by federal immigration law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito each wrote separate dissenting opinions. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.
LINK
Composition of the Court has changed.
That seems parallel to this case. We'll see.Quote:
I also agree with the Court that 3 is pre-empted by virtue of our decision in Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). Our conclusion in that case that Congress had enacted an "all-embracing system" of alien registration and that States cannot "enforce additional or auxiliary regulations," id., at 6667, 74, forecloses Arizona's attempt here to impose additional, state-law penalties for violations of the federal registration scheme.
Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:CDUB98 said:Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.Quote:
Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...
Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
Hubert J. Farnsworth said:PaulsBunions said:
I like Reagan but a lot of his decisions are really aging like milk nowadays
I agree.
samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:CDUB98 said:Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.Quote:
Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...
Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
Well if its legally sound or not is up for debate and we will find out.WT FOX said:samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:CDUB98 said:Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.Quote:
Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...
Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
I was telling you that the ruling was legally sound. I was not suggesting a course of action.
But I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
Yes, ignore progressives who are attempting to destroy our way of life.Antoninus said:"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.Antoninus said:"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
I support whomever is nominated, so try again.barbacoa taco said:They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution is part of their personality.Antoninus said:"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
barbacoa taco said:They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.Antoninus said:"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.Quote:
I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
Coming from a liberal dem, this is hilarious.barbacoa taco said:They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.Antoninus said:"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
Correct, time to fight fire with fire. The old days are overAntoninus said:Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.Quote:
I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
Antoninus said:Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.Quote:
I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
barbacoa taco said:They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.Antoninus said:"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.samurai_science said:Who gives a crap, just ignore it.WT FOX said:
Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.
After Jackson and Lincoln, there is a pretty-big drop-off.WT FOX said:I agree. Where would you place Trump on that list? Just trying to get a gauge for your spot on the political spectrum.Antoninus said:
Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.
He's actually a year younger than Trump.CDUB98 said:If he's that old, he should be retired.Rapier108 said:
Judge was originally appointed by Reagan.
Reality is that the TX arrest law was never going to survive. While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of Texas taking control and kicking people out, the simple fact is that, per the Constitution, immigration is a Federal matter.
Now, if TX wants to stand it's ground and tell the Feds to "Come and Take It," let's go. Time to get this **** overwith.
I do, I personally no longer have any care about doing whatever it takes to grind progressives to dust.Hubert J. Farnsworth said:
Ignore Antoninus and barbacoa taco. They are pulling the classic liberal tactic of telling conservatives to hold themselves to a standard that the liberals don't hold themselves to. Liberals cause the problems and then use this tactic on conservatives when they try to fight back.
Just remember, if this tactic were viable, then we'd have to accept the left ignoring judges by the same logic.2wealfth Man said:
I didn't give this judge the power to make this decision; ignore it and move on
I cannot speak for BBQT, but my personal political ideology is VERY libertarian, VERY "limited government" and VERY federalist. I assure you that I hold EVERY politician to the same standard ... be they GOP or Dem.Hubert J. Farnsworth said:
Ignore Antoninus and barbacoa taco. They are pulling the classic liberal tactic of telling conservatives to hold themselves to a standard that the liberals don't hold themselves to. Liberals cause the problems and then use this tactic on conservatives when they try to fight back.
Except, much like Shu, you only show up when it's time to goal tend for progressives. How odd.Antoninus said:I cannot speak for BBQT, but my personal political ideology is VERY libertarian, VERY "limited government" and VERY federalist. I assure you that I hold EVERY politician to the same standard ... be they GOP or Dem.Hubert J. Farnsworth said:
Ignore Antoninus and barbacoa taco. They are pulling the classic liberal tactic of telling conservatives to hold themselves to a standard that the liberals don't hold themselves to. Liberals cause the problems and then use this tactic on conservatives when they try to fight back.
Trump regularly ignores the constitution and thinks he's above it. He neither respects it nor understands it.Hubert J. Farnsworth said:
Ignore Antoninus and barbacoa taco. They are pulling the classic liberal tactic of telling conservatives to hold themselves to a standard that the liberals don't hold themselves to. Liberals cause the problems and then use this tactic on conservatives when they try to fight back.