Sanctuary Cities

Texas Lawmakers Vote to Force Local Police Help the Feds Detain and Deport Immigrants

No cities in the state have been targeted by the Justice Department for noncompliance, but never mind.

|

Texas capitol
Crackerclips / Dreamstime.com

President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Department of Justice can't force police officers in Texas to assist them in rounding up and deporting immigrants no matter how loudly they make such demands. But lawmakers in Texas can, and that's exactly what has happened.

Wednesday evening the Texas Senate approved SB 4, legislation that pretty much eliminates the concept of "sanctuary cities" within the state by authorizing officials to check the immigration status of anybody they detain (with exceptions for those who are in custody solely because they're witnesses or reporting a crime). The bill had already passed the state's House.

Much more importantly that just the immigration checks, SB 4 orders local police and authorities, under threat of civil and criminal penalty (and possible removal from office) to assist federal immigration officials by complying with "detainer" orders when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asks them to keep a deportable immigrant in custody until they come and pick him or her up.

Cooperation with immigration authorities has been a source of both contention and confusion in this fight. Those who rage against illegal immigration present sanctuary cities—where authorities typically do not check the residency status of people they encounter or detain—as defying the federal government. But in reality, federal law doesn't (and really technically cannot) require state or local officials to assist ICE in efforts to detain and deport people. The "detainer" orders sent to police or prison officials when ICE is attempting to collect somebody for deportation are just requests. Many cities comply. Some don't. Some require warrants or some sort of court order that the targeted individual has committed a crime first.

What actually is a violation of federal immigration law is any regulation or ordinance that prohibits local authorities from communicating with ICE or the Justice Department about a person's immigration or citizenship status. Apparently some sanctuary cities have ordinances that forbid this communication. When Sessions and the Justice Department sent out threatening letters warning they would cut federal grants to sanctuary cities, it actually only affected a small number of them (eight cities and one county). Why? These were the only cities with policies that might have actually interfered with communication between the feds and local authorities. It had nothing to do with cooperating with requests from the feds for assistance in deporting people.

And in fact, none of the cities targeted by the Department of Justice are in Texas. Not even Austin, where police leaders have openly said they would not comply with detainer orders, has been targeted. This is all despite the fact that Travis County, where Austin is found, was featured heavily in the Justice Department's first report that attempted to shame communities who were not cooperating with the feds.

So it's important to understand that what Texas lawmakers have done with SB 4 is to go above and beyond what federal law requires and orders cities and police, with the threat of civil and criminal penalties, to treat detainer requests from ICE as actual orders.

Houston's police chief, along with the executive director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association (so note that we aren't talking about just the hippies over there in Austin) warned in a commentary for the Houston Chronicle that this law is political pandering that will actually harm public safety and not help at all:

SB 4 requires local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement; this will tear down what we've worked so hard to build up. Officers will start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with, or worse, only inquire about the immigration status of individuals based on their appearance. This will lead to distrust of police, less cooperation from members of the community and will foster the belief that they cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being subjected to an immigration-status investigation. This is a lose-lose situation for everyone.

Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has already become evident among legal immigrants. Legal immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime. It should not be forgotten that by not arresting criminals who victimize our immigrant communities, we are also allowing them to remain free to victimize the rest of us.

These immigrants have good reason to fear. The increase of immigration enforcement under Trump is not just collecting the "bad hombres" the president invokes and sending them back to Mexico or South America. Data shows that many of the immigrants detained for deportation by ICE had only traffic violations as their crimes or had not even been convicted of a crime. The Justice Department's first report intended to document the illegal immigrants that sanctuary cities were protecting from deportation was also full of people who had committed minor crimes or had not even been convicted.

The governor of Texas has already said he'll sign SB 4, so consider it a done deal. A state that prides itself on its independence is going to force its cities and counties to help the federal government deport immigrants. Police and jail officials who resist face fines, criminal penalties, and could even get removed from office.

Read the law here.

NEXT: 14-Year-Old's Tooth Had to Be Sewn Back into Mouth After School Cop Punched Him

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What just happened?

    1. Trump grabbed some Little Sisters of the Poor pussy?

  2. Shockingly enough, to Yankee liberals like Paul Krugman, Texas used to be entirely “enlightened” when it came to border issues. George W. Bush and “early” Rick Perry regarded the economies of Texas and Mexico as a single unit. “What’s good for Mexico is good for Texas, and vice versa”. But national Republican Party was already largely xenophobic as far back as 2012, which was the real reason why Perry crashed and burned. Trump made the party infinitely worse, and now Texas Republicans want to be “tougher than Trump”. Thanks, Donald.

    1. Nearly half the Booboisie of this great God- and immigrant-fearing nation elected General Cheeto, not corporal Cheeto, to bash some foreign heads, so take your commie SJW limp-wristed Girls-watching Maddow-worshipping ass back to HuffPo you, you Democrat!

      1. You left out “cuck”.

    2. “””economies of Texas and Mexico as a single unit. “””

      Why would Texas want to be part of poor and corrupt.

      It would be like the EU wanting to join Ukraine

      1. You really think all of Mexico is a Speedy Gonzales cartoon don’t you.

        1. No no no. More like a Pancho Villa caricature.

        2. US GDP per capita in 2015: $56,430

          Mexico GDP per capita in 2015: $9,510

          1. …and? What’s your point?

        3. Yes, Mexico is really hella rich and run efficiently and stuff.

          We should just pass Mexico’s immigration policy here.

          1. Mexico has an excellent Immigration Policy.

            Just ask the Guatemalans …

            1. Their Southern border is pretty damned well secured.

              Don’t get why they’re so pissy if we do the same with OUR Southern border.

              1. So, it seems like you are saying we should pass Mexico’s immigration policy here.

            2. No, it doesnt. Which is why the country is poor. In the Mexican Constitution there exist protectionist schemes that wouod make the xenophobes at CIS and FAIR blush.

      2. Any idea how much trade is done between Mexico and Texas?

      3. It would be if anyone was suggesting that Texas should become part of Mexico.

  3. Officers will start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with, or worse, only inquire about the immigration status of individuals based on their appearance.

    How does a closed-border libertarian reconcile strict immigration enforcement with strict fidelity to the Fourth Amendment?

    It seems inevitable that if the police are going to deporting illegals, that they are either going to be demanding papers of everyone (which, according to the Fourth Amendment, citizens are *not* required to carry around with them), or to be profiling based on appearance. Is this what we want?

    1. That’s always been my question as well. Do they think the police state is only going to stomp on the bad guys’ necks?

    2. according to the Fourth Amendment, citizens are *not* required to carry around with them I’d suggest the Fifth might be more appropriate, but I do agree with you. However, practically speaking, the speed with which the public at large, as well as SCOTUS, welcomed the advent of the TSA suggests that your (our) argument is going to be an uphill fight.

    3. An illegal that lived and worked in my city got pulled over and arrested for drunken driving. They released him with a court date. He changed his name and went back to work.

      Later, he got pulled over and arrested for drunken driving a second time. They never had his ‘real’ name and now he had a new ID, so they couldn’t connect him to his previous offence, and apparently never really tried. They released him with a court date. Again. He changed his name and went back to work.

      Later, he got pulled over and arrested for drunken driving a third time. Same fucking story.

      Finally, he got wasted (BAC 3X the limit) again and slammed into the 19-yo son of a friend of mine, who had his 16-yo girlfriend in the car. Both dead. Illegal survived. Now he’s in prison, and the investigation revealed the first 3 drunk driving offenses.

      They don’t REALLY have to ask for EVERYONE’s papers in order to deport illegals who are arrested for crimes.

      This guy matched up with Scott’s argument: He only had committed traffic crimes and had been convicted of no crime at all before he killed those two kids.

      Anyway, that’s my Helen Lovejoy take on the situation.

      1. See that is the problem with these discussions. They inevitably lead to all sorts of anecdotal stories.

        Here is another anecdotal story. In short: Illegal immigrant, family fled abusive circumstances back in Mexico, became valedictorian of her highschool, received a full ride scholarship to Yale to become a neurosurgeon.

        Now, in reference to your story: should the man’s citizenship status been checked the first time he got pulled over for drunk driving? But citizenship is not required to drive a car in this country, and a driver’s license is not necessarily proof of citizenship. There doesn’t seem to be any necessary connection in this case between the crime committed and the person’s citizenship status. So what would be the reason that the police would inquire about citizenship in the first place? Because he looks Mexican? Just because he broke some law, any law? And if it’s the latter, it necessarily implies that all of us would be more or less obligated to carry our papers around, *just in case* we run into trouble and the police stop us and demand that we prove our citizenship status. Which is sort of my point.

        Besides, what if the police had asked him to prove his citizenship status, and the person said “no”. Then what? it’s not a crime to not have one’s papers on hand.

        1. Prove citizenship? Who gives a shit about that? I had several roommates in grad school who were from overseas (India, Germany, Egypt). Not citizens. You know what they had? Permission from our government to be in this country. They even occasionally got tickets for stuff like traffic offenses. But when my German roommate stupidly decided to take his party across the border into Canada on an expired visa, the US government kicked his ass out. That is, they gave him a 2-week visa to get back to Atlanta, get his affairs in order, and get out. Don’t make us come find you.

          But if you’ve arrested an illegal for a crime and they can’t demonstrate they’re here legally, then deporting them should be on the table, right? You’re right that we don’t have to carry valid documentation that you’re in the country legally around on us, but a reasonable investigation of people who are arrested should be able to turn that up before you release people on bail, shouldn’t it?

          1. “But if you’ve arrested an illegal for a crime and they can’t demonstrate they’re here legally, then deporting them should be on the table, right?”

            How should the police know that the person that they’ve just arrested is an illegal?

            Police: “Do you have permission to be in this country?”
            Person: “I don’t have to answer that question.”

            Then what? Demand that he present his papers? Then we are back to where we started, with everyone having to carry their papers just in case.

            Furthermore, on what basis should the police be asking that question? Should the police have to ask that question of everyone that they stop? Or just the people who “look like” they might be illegals?

            1. Squirrels are messing with me. I may have replied to your last post twice.

              How should the police know that the person that they’ve just arrested is an illegal?

              Investigation. The tool they use to uncover illegal acts generally.

              Police: “Do you have permission to be in this country?”
              Person: “I don’t have to answer that question.”

              Police: “Well, we’ll see what our investigation turns up.”

              1. Police: “Well, we’ll see what our investigation turns up.”

                What is the *basis* for such an investigation? It is not a crime to not have one’s papers on hand.

                1. What is the *basis* for such an investigation? It is not a crime to not have one’s papers on hand.

                  DUI case #1.

                  Failure to appear in court for DUI case #2.

                  Presenting false ID to the police.

                  DUI case #2

                  I could probably go on if I was a lawyer…

                  1. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not he had permission to be in the country.

                    Look, it seems as though the police screwed up in multiple ways, not the least of which not bothering to investigate whether this person was a repeat offender when he was picked up for a DUI for a second time. So how would it have mattered if he wasn’t an illegal? Seems as though your evidently incompetent police force would have not bothered to investigate either way.

                    1. So we can’t deport illegals even when they are criminals, because there’s no way to find out if criminals are illegals unless they’re so stupid they volunteer the information.

                      I wonder how law enforcement EVER determines whether someone is in the country illegally. To hear you tell it, such a determination should be impossible to make.

                    2. Are you retarded? You already do need to carry your ‘papers’ around with you when you travel and the government not only checks said papers but they also make sure you paid your taxes on your manner of conveyance every single last time you interact with them while driving. Oh, and failure to present said papers is a cause for ‘further investigation’ and possible citation and/or jail. Legal or not.

                      These ‘papers’ are your license and registration please.

                      God, some people are just so retarded it’s painful. Do you live in the same world as the rest of us Chemjeff?

                      For some reason, people willfully ignore the shit we must do as Citizens and then want to blissfully exempt those who are here illegally. You’ll defend an illegal aliens ‘right’ to be here and completely and blissfully ignore that your arguments rest on thin air and ‘rights’ even ‘We The People’ do not actually have. You want to talk about ‘should’, then sure, but what ‘is’ isn’t even close to what should be.

        2. Who cares about citizenship? I had friends in college who weren’t citizens, but they drove. When my German roommate stupidly crossed the border into Canada with an expired visa, they kicked him out. (Here’s a 2-week visa. Go back to Atlanta, pack your stuff, and get out. Don’t make us come find you.) Super easy for him to have avoided that. My Indian roommate was smarter than that and didn’t let his visa expire.

          Besides, what if the police had asked him to prove his citizenship status, and the person said “no”. Then what? it’s not a crime to not have one’s papers on hand..

          I’m not sure why refusing to release such a person on bail is the wrong answer, given my earlier caveats about ‘citizenship’ being a red herring. Prove you’re in the country legally (citizen or not) or wait in jail for your drunk driving trial.

          There has to be a middle ground between “You must carry your papers” and “We’re not even gonna check if we’ve got you in jail”

          1. “There has to be a middle ground between “You must carry your papers” and “We’re not even gonna check if we’ve got you in jail””

            In a practical sense, there really isn’t, as long as we have a Fourth Amendment. What you’re essentially saying is that if a person doesn’t have his/her papers on hand when demanded by the police, then that alone is a good enough justification for the police to suspect that person of being here illegally.

            What you seem to be saying is, that this person should not be released on bail, because he was exercising his Fourth Amendment right to be free of the burden of having to present papers whenever demanded to do so.

            1. If they arrest you, they can fingerprint you. If they can fingerprint you, they may not be able to positively ID you, but they can definitely tell you were the same guy they arrested 10 months ago. They can tell that you’re using an alternate name and that you skipped out on bail the last time. They can charge you for those crimes in addition to the DUI they’ve got you for now.

              But they don’t, right, because cops are worthless…

              1. “If they arrest you, they can fingerprint you. If they can fingerprint you, they may not be able to positively ID you, but they can definitely tell you were the same guy they arrested 10 months ago. They can tell that you’re using an alternate name and that you skipped out on bail the last time. They can charge you for those crimes in addition to the DUI they’ve got you for now.”

                That’s all fine and good. I would expect a good police force to do that. However none of that has anything to do with permission to be in this country.

                1. Really? Because if you have permission to be in the country, that permission can be revoked, and if you don’t have permission, we can kick you out much easier, right?

                  Except we don’t, and any tools that we try to give law enforcement to enable them to do so get demonized by folks like you. Everything is “Present your papers!”

                  There has to be a middle ground.

                  1. So what is this middle ground that doesn’t require me, a citizen, from having the requirement, either de jure or de facto, of carrying around proof of citizenship with me wherever I go?

                    Suppose I, as a whitebread normal American citizen, gets pulled over for speeding on the highway. Which happens from time to time. So the police already has probable cause to interfere with my life in some way. In this encounter, should the police be required to ask me for proof of permission to be in the country? If yes, then you are essentially saying my Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search (as currently defined) is null and void. If no, then you are asking the police to let a potential illegal get away and commit more crimes.

                    1. If no, then you are asking the police to let a potential illegal get away and commit more crimes.

                      First, stop muddying the waters by using the word citizenship. I am talking illegal vs. legal status to be in the US. Many non-citizens are here legally.

                      Secondly, you haven’t been and aren’t going to be arrested. There are different levels of intrusion the police are authorized to take, and for a ‘stop’, determining your citizenship isn’t one of them.

                      I am saying that it is not so great a burden on someone who has been arrested and is facing charges – make them show immigration status if there is any reason to suspect they are not here legally.

                    2. make them show immigration status if there is any reason to suspect they are not here legally

                      I actually agree with that. But there has to be a pre-existing good-faith reason for the police to suspect that the suspect is here illegally before demanding to see papers. “Because he looks Mexican” isn’t one of them. “Because he was arrested for some other unrelated crime” isn’t one of them.

                    3. Suppose I, as a whitebread normal American citizen, gets pulled over for speeding on the highway. Which happens from time to time. So the police already has probable cause to interfere with my life in some way. In this encounter, should the police be required to ask me for proof of permission to be in the country?

                      In 38 of the 50 states driving privileges are not extended to those illegally present. In all 50 states it’s more difficult for those illegally present to get mandatory insurance. So when they ask you for your proof of permission to drive on public roads and proof of mandatory insurance this solves itself.

                      But wait! What right have the coppers to ask me for my proof of permission to drive on public roads and my proof of mandatory insurance just because I violated the driving laws? Holy fuckaroo Batman, we must live in a Nazi fascist hellhole fascist police fascist state! PAPERS PLEASE! OH MY GOD!

                    4. “So when they ask you for your proof of permission to drive on public roads and proof of mandatory insurance this solves itself.”

                      No it doesn’t. Suppose I simply forgot to bring my driver’s license that day. Not having my license on hand is not prima facie proof that I am in the country illegally.

                    5. So what is this middle ground that doesn’t require me, a citizen, from having the requirement, either de jure or de facto, of carrying around proof of citizenship with me wherever I go?

                      The middle ground is that someone who is charged with a crime should be required to properly identify themselves (which is going to include proving citizenship status) before being released on bail. Because if they aren’t properly identified, there’s no guarantee that you’re going to get them to show up for trail. And before you go down the road of “but it’s not a crime, it’s a traffic violation, and I’m not being released on bail”, I’ll point out that the alternative of properly identifying oneself during a traffic stop is being arrested and held until trial.

                      Unless you’re saying that showing your license, registration, and proof of insurance is an unreasonable search, I don’t think your argument makes much sense.

                    6. The middle ground is that someone who is charged with a crime should be required to properly identify themselves (which is going to include proving citizenship status) before being released on bail.

                      This isn’t much of a “middle ground” since there is no necessary connection between proof of identity and proof of legal residency. I agree that I should have to provide proof of identity if the police actually do have probable cause that I have committed a crime. There is no reason why that proof of identity has to have any sort of necessary connection to legal residency.

                      And, I repeat, *it is not a crime to not have one’s citizenship papers on hand at a moment’s notice*.

        3. Here is another anecdotal story. In short: Illegal immigrant, family fled abusive circumstances back in Mexico, became valedictorian of her highschool, received a full ride scholarship to Yale to become a neurosurgeon.

          How much will she be sending back to pay for the costs of the support her illegal family got?

          Nothing?

          Then fuck her and her story.

          We can’t allow 5B people in the US. So, we have to be selective.

          Time to select people who don’t want their first act to be violating the law.

          1. Yes yes I know. Anecdotes only matter if they favor the narrative that you’re trying to push.

            Every anecdote that casts illegals as criminal monsters is sacred evidence that they are bad people.

            Every anecdote that casts illegals as angels, or even just decent people, is to be discarded as lies put forth by the MSM.

            1. That they are “illegals” at all is already evidence that we don’t need them here. First act in the country is to violate the law they don’t like. Yeah, that’s some good, upstanding people there we need to have stay on the longshot that one of their kids, who we pay thru the nose to support, might make a success of themselves.

              American citizenship should be considered valuable. Treat it as such.

              1. ^This is what some morons actually believe.

                Hey DK, you ever drive after a couple of beers? Ever speed? Ever smoked pot?

              2. That they are “illegals” at all is already evidence that we don’t need them here.

                What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Do you think that laws are all just and correct and well thought out?

                And fuck this “we” nonsense. The country is not collectively owned. Some people do need (or at least want) them here. Otherwise they wouldn’t be here.

              3. Re: damikesc,

                That they are “illegals” at all is already evidence that we don’t need them here.

                I’ve heard and read all sorts of stupid arguments from Trumpistas but this one really takes the cake.

                Using the same argument, tell me that the fact that there was illegal booze during Prohibition is prima facie evidence that Americans were all teetotalers. G’on, be brave and tell me that.

                Idiot.

          2. We can’t allow 5B people in the US.

            Sorry, but that’s just idiotic. The entire population of the world isn’t trying to enter the US.

      2. Let people enter legally and that problem would go away. You don’t see that happening with legal immigrants or citizens because they have to prove their identity to get a license and enter the country.

        1. Forget it Zeb. Immigration laws are sacred and should be both maintained (nay, strengthened) and upheld at all costs.

    4. “they are either going to be demanding papers of everyone (which, according to the Fourth Amendment, citizens are *not* required to carry around with them), or to be profiling based on appearance. Is this what we want?”

      Do you really think the average flat foot is going to be required to stop everybody walking/riding/flying and demand papers?

      This seems to be pretty hyperbolic. How about the police simply check the citizenship status of those they arrest in the normal course of their policing?

      If a prisoner can’t speak English, is it “profiling” to suspect that the prisoner is maybe not a citizen?

      1. Do you really think the average flat foot is going to be required to stop everybody walking/riding/flying and demand papers?

        If you want to remove all or even most illegal immigrants from the country, that’s probably what would be required.

        1. As far as I can tell, there is no move afoot to remove ALL illegal immigrants.

          The feds are trying to remove illegals who commit crimes. I like that idea.

          Conflating the proposal to quash sanctuary cities with the absurd claim that the feds want to remove all illegal immigrants makes reasonable people roll their eyes.

          1. No, there isn’t. But a lot of people do seem to have that as an end goal.

            1. The fact that people have that as an end goal is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion, unless/until those people are participating in the discussion.

  4. by authorizing officials to check the immigration status of anybody they detain (with exceptions for those who are in custody solely because they’re witnesses or reporting a crime). The bill had already passed the state’s House.

    SB 4 orders local police and authorities . . . [to comply] with “detainer” orders . . .

    So, this is about 99% of where Texas was *anyway*. Officials have *always* been authorized – but not *required* – to check immigration status. I don’t see where there’s any obligation to pass that information over to the Feds though. Granted, full verification through the Federal system might set off a flag in CPB. And they’re still ‘authorized’ to *not check immigration status* if they so choose. No difference here.

    And there’s little to be done on the rare occassion that CPB gets a detainer order and gets it in place in time – to hold a guy for a whole 48 hours after the locals are done with him. And then there’s the low-likelyhood that CPB will get there in that 2 day window.

    1. And that’s why *most* jurisdictions don’t comply with detainer orders – not because they’re ‘sanctuaries’ but because the Feds have a long history of showing up when they feel like showing up. And the locals are expected to foot the jailing bill until and when the Feds decide to get around to reimbursing them.

      If CPD doesn’t step up its game then they’re just going to keep doing what they’ve always been doing – not GAF about immigration status. If you don’t check it in the first place then you don’t have to deal with this shit.

  5. Employers require employees to do things that will save employers money.

    Yup, that sounds totally not libertarian.

    1. I’m not sure how this would save the state of Texas money.

      1. Not having to support a bunch of illegals would save them money. Schooling et al of illegals isn’t an insignificant amount of money.

        1. That assumes that the policy will have a significant effect on the population. Which is not obviously the case. As someone points out above, it’s not much of a change from how it works now. Most illegal immigrants seem to be able to stay out of trouble.

          You know what would save even more money? Not supporting anyone. It’s really no difference to me if the person receiving money taken from me by force is a citizen, legal resident or illegal alien.

          1. It’s really no difference to me if the person receiving money taken from me by force is a citizen, legal resident or illegal alien.

            Good for you. To some of the people whose kids have to attend schools with majority non-English-speaking students, bloated class sizes, ethnic-based gangs, and shitty education outcomes it does matter. Most people aren’t morally opposed to public education, but might have qualms about their schools turning to shithole Mexican barrios.

            Of course we can’t go by statistics – after all, an illegal immigrant is going to Yale!

            1. You don’t seem to be providing any statistics either. Just more anecdotes.

              1. Here is one source. Here’s another that acknowledges the underachievement and crappy outcomes of illegal immigrants in American schools in the context of blaming it on whitey – you might like that one. But all you’re going to do is scream ANECDOTE at anything that doesn’t fit your narrative while simultaneously accusing your opponents of the same, so really, what’s the point?

                What you’re not getting is that a lot of people are actually living an experience that you call an anecdote and they don’t really like it very much. But it’s easy to pretend they don’t exist and their concerns are illegitimate if you comfort yourself with the notion that most illegal immigrants are Yale-bound neurosurgeons.

                1. Like the anecdotal parents of the 14 year old who was raped at school by an 18 year freshman illegal immigrant. Telling them that their experience is a stupid single anecdote and that stealing your money to send their kid to school is no different from stealing your money to send her rapist to school probably isn’t going to do much to convince them.

                  Or the anecdotal students of an LA high school.

                  But until you’re the anecdote, who gives a shit? It’s easy to be objective when your only experience with illegal immigrants is picking up lunch from a taco truck.

                2. What you’re not getting is that a lot of people are actually living an experience that you call an anecdote and they don’t really like it very much. But it’s easy to pretend they don’t exist and their concerns are illegitimate if you comfort yourself with the notion that most illegal immigrants are Yale-bound neurosurgeons.

                  I don’t pretend they don’t exist. Of course they do. I don’t believe their concerns are illegitimate. I don’t believe most illegals are going to Yale. What a bunch of nonsense.

                  I do believe that there are a lot of concerns when it comes to preserving everyone’s rights in the context of illegal immigration. But what I do blame people for is scapegoating brown people as an attempt to solve the perceived problem.

                  Illegals get the blame for shitty schools because they are different and “the other”. Plain and simple. There are shitty schools ALL OVER this country, not just where illegals are you know. The biggest reason why they are shitty is because they are GOVERNMENT-RUN and cesspools of lethargy and corruption enabled by the teacher’s unions in collusion with government bureaucrats.

  6. “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asks them to keep a deportable immigrant in custody until they come and pick him or her up.”

    From my recollection the reason a lot of jurisdictions stopped holding illegals was because ICE took days, weeks or never did come by to pickup these people. Meanwhile the local department must house and feed these people which costs money. Was the issue of compensating the local police addressed in this bill? Or are they just going to have to increase Civil Asset Forfeitures?

  7. Data shows that many of the immigrants detained for deportation by ICE had only traffic violations as their crimes or had not even been convicted of a crime

    No immigrants have been detained for deportation by ICE.

    ILLEGAL ALIENS have been detained for deportation by ICE.

    There’s a difference.

    A difference that you have to deliberately obscure to have any point at all.

    Protip–when you’ve gotta start your argument with a lie that you and all listening know is a lie, you are on the wrong side.

    1. a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

      Doesn’t say anything about legal or illegal.

    2. No immigrants have been detained for deportation by ICE.

      Non? Zero? Not even 1 by mistake?

      Protip–when you’ve gotta start your argument with a lie that you and all listening know is a lie, you are on the wrong side.

      Google: Rennison Castillo

      http://articles.latimes.com/20…..p-20110224

    3. Wow. I think you managed to make a comment that contains no true statements at all.

      You perhaps don’t realize it, but it is possible, and quite common, for two or more different words or phrases to accurately refer to the same thing.

  8. Officers will start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with, or worse, only inquire about the immigration status of individuals based on their appearance.

    Just like it happened in Arizona, this new Texas law will only serve to harass American citizens who look like the Frito Bandito and don’t carry their birth certificates as a matter of routine. It will not do what it is intended to do which is scare away undocumented immigrants.

  9. You really can’t have it both ways. Either states and municipalities have discretion on this sort of thing or they don’t. Remember when you were rah-rahing about sanctuary cities and how it was the dog-blessed right of every local government to tell the feds to fuck themselves with a corncob (and that it was simultaneously unconstitutional and fascist Nazi fascist with extra Nazi fascism on top to withhold one red cent in federal funding from local governments that do so)? Well the same discretion allows them to cooperate with the feds as well. If you support the principle of local discretion, you don’t get to whinge when it results in an outcome you don’t like.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.