A judge blocked the enforcement of the law? Send a couple hundred to his drive way.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Until SCOTUS rules it isn't. Is that going to happen here? IDK.

---

That would undo over a century of SC precedent and is highly unlikely.

Now the Country of Texas could absolutely enforce its own borders.

PaulsBunions said:

---

I like Reagan but a lot of his decisions are really aging like milk nowadays

---

I agree.

WT FOX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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...

---

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.

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.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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...

---

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.

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.

---

It's been awhile since my immigration classes from law school but I think the Chinese exclusionary law rulings by the SC in the early 1900s prohibit state and local enforcement.

I was an ICE agent early in my LE career and Clinton/Bush were tough on illegal immigration. They started a program under 287(g) that essentially deputized locals to enforce immigration laws.

I do not believe individual state and local LE have that power absent the consent of the feds.

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

Arizona v. U.S.

LINK

Composition of the Court has changed.

---

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.

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.

---

1836er said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

To the best of my recollection, MOST of them just say (to summarize) "We are not going to go out of our way to help the Feds deport people, except where a specific Federal law requires that we do so."

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."

---

Well-explained.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

Arizona v. U.S.

LINK

Composition of the Court has changed.

---

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.

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.

---

---

Wanna bet he'll find a way around that?

WT FOX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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...

---

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.

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.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

I like Reagan but a lot of his decisions are really aging like milk nowadays

---

I agree.

---

In fairness to him, what he did was meant for a society almost half a century ago. A lot changes in that amount of time.

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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...

---

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.

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.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

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.

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

WT FOX said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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...

---

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.

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.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

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.

---

Well if its legally sound or not is up for debate and we will find out.

Antoninus said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

---

Yes, ignore progressives who are attempting to destroy our way of life.

Antoninus said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

---

They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.

I didn't give this judge the power to make this decision; ignore it and move on

barbacoa taco said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

---

They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution is part of their personality.

---

I support whomever is nominated, so try again.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

---

They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.

---

Do you pay attention to daily happenings?

Quote:

---

I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

---

Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

---

They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.

---

Coming from a liberal dem, this is hilarious.

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

---

Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.

---

Correct, time to fight fire with fire. The old days are over

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

---

Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.

---

I agree. Where would you place Trump on that list? Just trying to get a gauge for your spot on the political spectrum.

When your elected officials abandon the thing that you elected them to do I suggest they are no longer your elected officials.

Texas has a duty to protect its citizens. This over rides whatever some Federal Judge in Austin says. Texas needs to start deporting thousands a day.

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.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Who gives a crap, just ignore it.

---

"Ignore the Constitution." That is a some Prime, Grade-A Dem thinking, amigo.

---

They support Trump. Ignoring the Constitution what they do.

---

WT FOX said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.

---

I agree. Where would you place Trump on that list? Just trying to get a gauge for your spot on the political spectrum.

---

After Jackson and Lincoln, there is a pretty-big drop-off.

Seriously, I would have to judge that Top 5 list by how effective a given president was in actually EXERCISING dictatorial powers. By that standard, Trump would not rate very high at all. Probably would not even make it into the top half. The other branches did a pretty good job of keeping his inclinations in check.

If we were to judge by what a given President WANTED to do and what he genuinely believed he COULD do by fiat ... he probably moves into the Top 10 or so. His business background and status as the CEO of a closely-held business "empire" just left him with unrealistic expectations as to the role of a President in a system with 3 co-equal branches of government. He expected deference from the other branches, to which neither he nor ANY President is entitled under our Constitution.

CDUB98 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge was originally appointed by Reagan.

---

If he's that old, he should be retired.

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.

---

He's actually a year younger than Trump.

And? This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

However, your concern is noted.

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.

---

I do, I personally no longer have any care about doing whatever it takes to grind progressives to dust.

2wealfth Man said:

---

I didn't give this judge the power to make this decision; ignore it and move on

---

Just remember, if this tactic were viable, then we'd have to accept the left ignoring judges by the same logic.

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.

---

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.

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Except, much like Shu, you only show up when it's time to goal tend for progressives. How odd.

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.

And if you read the opinion, it does a good job explaining why Texas has exceeded its authority with this law. But this was the whole point. For there to be legal challenges and for it to get back to SCOTUS.