Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Most of Texas Anti-Sanctuary City Law

State cannot force local police to serve as immigration agents and detain people for the feds.

Crackerclips / Dreamstime.com

A federal judge has temporarily stopped most of Texas' controversial anti-sanctuary city law from being enforced, just two days before it was scheduled to take effect.

Orlando Garcia of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas hasn't completely shut down the law. But in a lengthy ruling released Wednesday night Garcia determined the cities and counties within the state who filed suit to stop the law have a good chance of winning on some of the claims. A temporary injunction stops much of the law from being implemented as the lawsuit moves forward.

Senate Bill 4, passed in May by an extremely contentious state legislature, pitted the state's Republican leadership against the Democratic rule of several major cities in the state. The law was directed at "sanctuary cities"—cities where officials generally do not ask the citizenship status of people within their borders.

The law requires local police to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in deportation efforts and comply with immigration "detainer" orders. These are requests that come from ICE or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asking a local law enforcement agency to detain people in the country illegally until the feds can pick them up for deportation.

Detainer orders are simply requests. No local law enforcement agency is under any legal obligation to comply. Cities, counties, and states have developed various guidelines for compliance. Many require DHS to get an arrest warrant. Many so-called sanctuary cities cooperate with detainer orders for immigrants with violent criminal records.

SB 4 overruled the policies cities put in place. The law also threatened law enforcement leaders with criminal and civil penalties and their removal from office for refusing to help the feds. The law even banned local government officials from publicly endorsing policies that ran counter to enforcement of immigration law.

Cities and counties are claiming SB 4 violates a host of constitutional rights—the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment, not to mention the Supremacy Clause and Texas' own constitution.

There is an attitude among some who want more enforcement of immigration laws that a person in the country illegally has no rights and can be treated as a convicted criminal. It isn't true as a legal matter. A person cannot be held by local police for an indeterminate amount of time simply on suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

In July, the Massachusetts' Supreme Court ruled police in the state legally did not have the authority to detain people solely at the request of immigration officials. Given that local police are not federal immigration officials, it's a Fourth Amendment violation to hold them in absence of any other criminal conduct.

Garcia's ruling comes to a similar conclusion about detainer orders in Texas:

SB 4 prohibits local officials from undertaking any particularized assessment of suspected criminality. Rather, it mandates that they effect a seizure simply because it was requested by ICE, who issues that request based upon suspicion that the subject of the request is removable, not based on suspicion of a crime. … Under SB 4, this assessment of immigration status must be made by local officials, who are generally not trained in the complex field of immigration status determinations, and who, if they are mistaken, face the risks of financial penalties, removal from office, and criminal prosecution by Defendants on the one hand, or wrongfully detaining a citizen or lawfully present immigrant, and any related liability, on the other.

The judge left in place the part of the law authorizing local law enforcement officials to question the immigration status of anybody they detain. But the rest of the law will not be implemented on Friday as planned.

The proponents of SB 4 are appealing the injunction, so stay tuned.

Comments

[damikesc]

Cities have no legal standing (not in the Constitution whatsoever). They are explicitly inferior to the state. I fail to see where this injunction has any basis as Texas can just decide to remove ALL government authority from cities and there'd be no legal issue whatsoever.

[Eric]

I'm sure your tune would be different were it a law forcing local jurisdictions to cooperate with and assist ATF agents with rounding up illegal firearms and accessories.

[WakaWaka]

And your opinion might be different if a local government refused to enforce national reciprocity laws. Neither side is being consistent here

[FreeSpeechMatters]

This ruling is baseless, for the reasons given by commenter damikesc above and BearOdison below.

The parties concede a city can voluntarily choose NOT to be a sanctuary city. Logically, therefore, the State of Texas, which has plenary power over the cities in its border, can choose not to allow them to be sanctuary cities, too. As the Supreme Court observed in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161 (1907), "The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipalities] and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State."

So Texas can just ban sanctuary cities.

By contrast, the federal government's power over state and local governments is limited, and it cannot conscript local sheriffs into carrying out federal programs. See Printz v. United States (1997). So the feds, unlike Texas, cannot ban sanctuary cities.

But the Supreme Court's rulings make clear that the fact that the federal government can't ban sanctuary cities (as opposed to withholding certain federal funds from them) doesn't mean the State of Texas can't ban sanctuary cities in its borders.

Judge Orlando Garcia, the Democratic judge who issued the sanctuary cities ruling, has a history of kooky rulings, and sees racism everywhere, even in colorblind legislation such as budget cuts and deregulation. See his ruling in the voter ID case, Perez v. Perry, No. SA-11-CV-360 (W.D. Tex. March 10, 2017), pp. 429 & 443.

[FreeSpeechMatters]

The judge who issued this ruling is a left-wing Democratic Party hack who hurls baseless charges of racism. In his ruling in Perez v. Perry, invalidating voter ID requirements, he depicted budget cuts and other colorblind legislation as racist.

In that ruling, he and another Hispanic judge claimed that the "2011 legislative session" of the Texas legislature "included a number of bills that exhibited anti-minority or anti-Hispanic sentiment or had potentially discriminatory effects on minorities, including voter ID, the early voting absentee bill, the Sanctuary Cities bill, and public education funding." (see pg. 429).

Judge Garcia has also treated opposition to NAACP positions as being suspect (the NAACP opposes sanctuary city legislation, and virtually all budget cuts, free-market policies, and deregulatory measures), complaining in that ruling (pg. 443) that "Anglo Republican congresspersons have not been responsive to the African-American community. Congressman Roger Williams...and Congressman Blake Farenthold both receive an 'F' on the NAACP report card...The NAACP report card is an effective barometer for determining which members of Congress support the interests of the African-American community."

[Last of the Shitlords]

Need to bounce his commie ass off the bench. Shitty (generally progtarded) judges are tolerated to a ridiculous degree anymore.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

I've never understood the how requiring an ID to vote somehow disenfranchises a group of people from exercising that right, but does not disenfranchise the same group from the right to bear arms when an ID is require to exercise that right.

[Michael Ejercito]

It makes perfect sense to dishonest partisan hacks.

[mpercy]

I've been hoping that instead of drug-testing welfare applicants, we could just subject them to the same level of scrutiny that carry permit people go through.

Have to show up in person, with approved ID and proof of citizenship and residency. Then be fingerprinted and photographed, then have a wants & warrants check plus FBI background check run. Since it's for welfare benefits, we can waive the normal not-insignificant fees associated with getting a carry permit.

Once they pass, they can get their welfare and as an additional benefit, the ID they get issued would be suitable for voting purposes! So no excuses for low-income folks to not have proper ID for voting anymore.

If 2nd amendment "shall not be infringed" but going through all those hoops is OK, I fail to see how simply asking people to prove the are citizens and legal residents of the district in which they are attempting to vote is so onerous.

[Brendan]

Yep.

The mere requirement that a person present ID is said to disenfranchise poor people, minorities, etc.

On the legal level, people have to present ID not just to buy guns, but to drive, have things notarized, enter some federal buldings and nuclear power plants, fly, etc. in addition to various inconsistently applied things like filing documents with the court, police, local tax assessor, etc.

On the private level, most places require ID to buy tobacco, alcohol, solvents (Wal-Mart loves this), open a bank account, write checks, take out loans, use credit/debit cards (This is against card issuer policy, but still prevalent), borrow tools at some hardware/autoparts stores, use a shooting range, get a library card, pick up packages at UPS/Fedex depots/stores, buying/renting homes, cars, or watercraft, etc.

If ID requirements were really so oppressive, the left would rail against poor people and minorities being excluded from nearly all of society.

[loveconstitution1789]

Well, the right to own and bear firearms is protected by the Texas and US Constitutions.

Nice try though. That must work all the time with your lefty friends.

[Eric]

Do you ever not use the term "lefty" in your posts?

Lemme guess:

He was a beautiful creature, long haired, smelled deeply of patchouli and knew how to please a man with his hands as well as his mouth. The day you found him with another was too much to bear. You always talked about open relationships, but you never thought he meant it, right? That evening while wandering the forest aimless, you stumbled upon a group of men wearing sheets, burning a cross, and offering a new type of manly comfort. That evening LC1789 was born anew with a new purpose...and the pain he felt was buried deeply...but not too deep.

[Last of the Shitlords]

You disagree with him so he must be racist, right?

[loveconstitution1789]

I am Cherokee, so I never get invited to Democrat KKK rallies.

Let me know when your next racist meeting of socialists is and I will try and attend.

[ThomasD]

I'm sure your tune would be different were it a law forcing local jurisdictions to cooperate with and assist ATF agents with rounding up illegal firearms and accessories.

An argument that might have some merit if it were the Federal government were seeking to compel cooperation from local Texas jurisdictions. Which is not Constitutionally kosher.

But it's not.

In this case it is the State of Texas seeking to compel cooperation from it's local jurisdictions. Which is pretty much how all state law works.

[damikesc]

I wouldn't be filing suit over it. States have the power. Cities and counties have none.

[Mickey Rat]

I suppose that would be where the Supremacy Clausr if the Texas constitution would come into play, but I would think that would be out of the federal judiciary's jurisdiction.

[Agammamon]

There's more than one issue here.

I agree that the requirement to cooperate is likely legal - but the ban on *endorsing* counter policies seems blatantly illegal.

And there's the state constitutional issue - this stuff may be legal under the power given to states in the Federal Constution while being prohibited to the state by its own.

[DRM]

If there's a state constitutional issue, it's utterly outside the jurisdiction of a Federal court.

[loveconstitution1789]

Mostly. A State Constitution that violated US Constitution protections would allow for federal intervention.

[Charles Easterly]

I am reading Judge Garcia's ruling the Scott provided a link to and am finding it much easier to understand than many legal rulings I have read (or, in most cases partially read). In Judge Garcia's ruling he clearly establishes precedent after stating the context of the law in order to support his decisions. This is helping me understand how the law works/is supposed to work which in turn helps me understand why he ruled as he did.

[retiredfire]

Judges are supposed to rule ON THE LAW, as written.
Not coming up with their own context so that a precedent can be established.
Context can be a purely subjective matter and allows a judge to distort the law to accommodate his pre-judged position.
That's the huge problem with the "legal" system - judges have too much power.
They need to be held to account for such ludicrous decisions.

[WakaWaka]

How is a State not allowed to force its local governments to obey federal law, but a local government (that lacks sovereignty) can ignore federal law?

[loveconstitution1789]

You just described lefty logic 101 "Usurping the Democratic Republic of the United States".

[Elias Fakaname]

I wonder at what point people like the ones here will finally realize what a growing existential threat progressives are and finally be willing to do something about them. Hopefully before it's too late. Or maybe never, I have a friend, who sometimes posts here, that I mow full well would quietly go along with a communist takeover just to avoid the pain.

[Agammamon]

Local governments *are not ignoring Federal law*.

They are simply exercising their freedom to not enforce Federal law - by not checking immigration status, by not informing CBP of an inmate's immigration status, by ignoring retainer requests.

There's no ignoring Federal law here. The Feds are still free to check immigration status, they're still allowed to detain prisoners on their own - either through a warrant or through waiting at the gate for when the guy is let out of county and then snatching him right back up.

Sanctuary cities, in general, don't do anything illegal and they don't refuse to do those things the law mandates - they just refuse to do those things which are optional.

[loveconstitution1789]

And the State of Texas is saying you cannot ignore federal immigration law anymore.

Covering for illegals is actually a crime. Its called aiding and abetting a criminal. Secure border type Americans are trying to be nice about this and not make aiding and abetting illegals a big deal but this BS is getting old. All we want to do is deport these illegals.

You open border types might want to pick your battles and if this is your Hill 69, so be it.

[Agammamon]

They were never ignoring the law. Vanishingly few sanctuary cities have people inside their governments at the implementation level that are willing to risk taking an axe to the neck for failing to do their legally mandates duty or even to break the law in order to make it easier for illegals.

There are plenty who are willing to walk right up to the line and step no further though - and that's what's been happening.

The TX law's purpose is to impose further duties on these guys - some of what that law is requiring seems to be well within the state's authority, some of it seems to be completely outside of it.

[Long Woodchippers]

The state of Texas chose to make it no longer optional.

[Agammamon]

And the lawsuit is to see how much of the 'no longer optional' are actually part of the state's legal authority.

Its not just 'comply with detainer requests' or 'pass on information you have about a suspect's immigration status to CBP', its '*check the suspect's immigration status' (arguably within the state's authority) and 'don't talk against these policies' (which is completely outside the state's authority - especially for *elected* officials).

[BearOdinson]

I fail to see the 10th Amendment concern. The state legislature has the authority to define the limits of authority of local police. Cities may not like it, but unless the state constitution doesn't grant the legislature that authority, the state would have that power. This isn't an issue of powers not delegated the Federal govt. The state is voluntarily agreeing to assist the Federal govt. Not being forced.

And the other thing that is tricky, what rights of non-citizens is the govt supposed to protect? Why some and not all? If a non-citizen has the right to free speech, do they have the right to a speedy trial? To not suffer cruel and unusual punishment? And of course, the right to keep and bear arms?

[Agammamon]

All of them. They're not 'citizen rights', they are human rights. And they extend to all people everywhere. The USG just has a duty to protect them within its territory (but, IMO, should not be allowed to violate them elsewhere either).

These guys are just criminals - treat them like that then.

[loveconstitution1789]

Well, US Constitutional rights mostly apply to anyone, Americans or not, inside US territory.

Non-US citizens are not supposed to have guns as one example.

The 1st Amendment protection of free speech does not apply to Americans in say, Australia. The 1st Amendment certainly does not protect Saudis from Saudi laws.

[Elias Fakaname]

There are certainly other limits, or should be. I don't think a bunch of foreigners should have the right to free assembly, at least to the degree citizens do. Can you imagine a 'one million illegals' march put on by la rasa?

[Agammamon]

The USG's is not obligated to protect your freedom of speech outside US territory - but you still have it. If you don't then we need to just go ahead and roll of the carpet, turn out the lights, and go home because that means all rights come from the government and so there's no place for libertarianism.

[Sports Reporter Charles Manson]

OT - "I saw a banana peel and it make me think about black people - thus proving society is racist!"

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9679

[loveconstitution1789]

This is why people say judges are legislating from the bench.

States have authority over counties and cities. Its why states have constitutions and cities and counties don't.

This is more of a corrupt judge who does not want illegal immigration to stop, trying to force a state to not be able to use its Legislative authority to force sanctuary cities to obey federal immigration law.

[Brandybuck]

States do not have the authority to compel cities and counties to act beyond their jurisdiction. Immigration is a Federal matter that falls under Federal jurisdiction, not the state jurisdiction. So many anti-immigrationists forget this.This is how Arpaio got in trouble. Reciprocity is one thing, and it does muddy the water quite a bit, but ordering a city or county to extend the boundaries of their jurisdiction is just not allowed.

It's not the state's job to compel cities to comply with Federal law, it's the Fed's job to do that.

[ThomasD]

Your argument boils down to a principle that lesser agencies cannot enforce Federal law.

Which is beyond stupid.

I'd certainly agree that their enforcement efforts must be limited to the boundaries of their jurisdiction. But within those boundaries they can enforce any law in effect, up to and including all Federal law.

That the Feds cannot compel them to enforce Federal does not mean they are restricted from enforcement.

[Agammamon]

Can - but they should not be allowed to. I know immigration is a hot-button issue but consider how it works beyond immigration. Do you want your local cops breaking heads because someone packaged lobster in plastic instead of paper for shipping? Because that's the sort of thing 'enforce federal law' is all about.

Jurisdictions and responsibilities should be kept separate. State cops enforce state laws, federal cops enforce federal laws. If one set finds someone who broke the other, then you can always pick up the phone and give the other guys a heads up.

[loveconstitution1789]

Local law enforcement can already enforce any federal law on the books if they so desire.

Another reason not to have so many laws on the books.

[damikesc]

States do not have the authority to compel cities and counties to act beyond their jurisdiction.

And the state is not. It is demanding they abide by state law (which is paramount in the state) within the cities. Again, TX could just say that Austin ceases to exist as a city and is governed by the state and there'd be zero legal obstacles in doing so.

[DRM]

As far as Federal law is concerned (and this is a Federal judge, so that is all that matters), states have the authority to compel city and county governments to do anything the state itself may do, or forbid them to do anything the state may refrain from doing, as cities and counties are organs of the state government.

[Last of the Shitlords]

"anti-immigrationists"

Translation: Those of us who believe i the constitution and the federal government's enumerated power to regulate immigration. As opposed to an open border free for all.

[Crusty Juggler]

I'll let my bias determine whether or not I agree with this ruling.

[Sports Reporter Charles Manson]

How about: "Cities and counties will act in good faith, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to cooperate in enforcement of federal immigration laws."

Too many loopholes?

[Jury Nullification]

"Under SB 4, this assessment of immigration status must be made by local officials, who are generally not trained in the complex field of immigration status determinations, ..."

WTF makes it so complex? Would that be the insufficient intellect of those who would be charged with making a determination, their inherent integrity and/or insufficient databases. The feds have?/had a program to train local police so as to make them authorized to do so. Perhaps any grants/funds to cities and states should stipulate that full participation in those programs was mandatory which would eliminate the "too complex" and "no authority" excuse. Much like states being threatened with withdrawal of highway funds for drinking age minimums and seat belt laws. Selective extortion is the status quo.

[Jury Nullification]

cont.

Since when did it matter that state agents were "generally not trained" to the point of stopping implementation. Cops are charged with being scientists (field drug analysis), doctors (intoxication determinations) and sociologists (domestic violence) but those legitimately complicated fields are apparently in their collective wheelhouse. It seems that training and re-training are constantly being pushed as the solution to whatever problems arise and not rescinding the authorization that propels it. Fuck college...just go to the police academy to be a Jack(BT) of all trades....except immigration enforcement.

The state only need invoke "national security" or "public safety" when it wants to get its way. Why not here? Perhaps not enough loot to be confiscated and forfeited. The "If it saves just one life" BS is paramount until it isn't.

Wish I could have been more pithy and brief.

[esteve7]

Well it's quite simple, sanctuary cities are good and people who don't like them are bad, so it's unconstitutional somehow. This is a wacko leftist hack, just ruling whatever the hell he wants to because feels

[UVaGrad]

This is a 94-page decision that has a lot going on, but one point the "cities are just subdivisions of states that the states can regulate however they want" crowd is missing: SB4's definition of "local entity" includes not only cities/counties/etc., but also "an officer or employee" of a city/county/etc. While the Constitution says nothing about what states are allowed to do to cities, it says a whole lot about how states are allowed to treat natural persons.

So, for example, SB4 provides, on pain of criminal penalty, that local entities cannot adopt a "pattern or practice" that "materially limits" the enforcement of immigration laws. This was enjoined on the grounds that "materially limit" is so vague that it doesn't give the cities any sense of what it prohibits. But more to the point, it was enjoined because individual persons--local government officials--faced imprisonment for violating this vague prohibition. It's the same vagueness analysis that would apply to any criminal law: you can't throw someone in prison because he violates a law that doesn't spell out what it prohibits. It's just that here, the City of Dallas or whatever can sue instead of the police chief because the statute-writing wizards in the Texas legislature defined "City of Dallas" to include "its police chief."

[damikesc]

So, for example, SB4 provides, on pain of criminal penalty, that local entities cannot adopt a "pattern or practice" that "materially limits" the enforcement of immigration laws. This was enjoined on the grounds that "materially limit" is so vague that it doesn't give the cities any sense of what it prohibits.

The state has absolute power in this case. The cities have no case to make. What is prohibited? Everything. If a city doesn't know, then ask the state.

It's the same vagueness analysis that would apply to any criminal law: you can't throw someone in prison because he violates a law that doesn't spell out what it prohibits.

I don't see any prison sentences.

Again, if the state says "your city government no longer exists", there would be zero legal problems.

[Lester224]

So, according to SB4, if a county sheriff decides to use his resources to investigate child abuse cases instead of rounding up illegal aliens, then the county police chief can can be imprisoned for failing to follow state priorities? How much micro-management does the state obtain? Can the county police chief tell them that he doesn't have resources to contact ICE for every traffic stop that involves a brown-colored person with a Spanish accent?

[Last of the Shitlords]

What a bullshit distortion of reality. I'll bet you conflate having sovereign borders to Nazi Germany somehow too.

[Tony]

I like how people just gloss over the fact that this entire movement is grounded solely in racist hatred of Latinos. Whatever pathetic defense you make of laws like this, that's what the motivation is, because there's fuck-all to do with improving the welfare of Americans in any of this rhetoric or legislation.

[Sports Reporter Charles Manson]

Suppose the cops arrest someone for, say, aggravated assault, and find out that he's in this country illegally. A non-racist policy would be...

[fill in the blank]

[Sports Reporter Charles Manson]

I suspect you either don't have much interest in immigration policy as such, or else spelling out the details of your position would be demeaning to you because you don't have to explain yourself to a bunch of RACISTS.

[Tony]

Unlawful presence is the legal equivalent of a parking ticket--not even a misdemeanor.

[Sports Reporter Charles Manson]

So you would fill in the blank with "do nothing"?

[Sports Reporter Charles Manson]

(and if a car is illegally parked, at the very least shouldn't the car get towed away from the place where it's not supposed to be? I use the car metaphor only because you invoked it)

[Tony]

I'm not prepared to write law here, and don't understand the point of your question. The point of my original post is that all of these anti-sanctuary city efforts, all of the anti-immigrant rhetoric, including what served as the foundation of the current president's campaign, is based in racial hatred and nothing else. It's certainly not based on an understanding of how the US economy works.

[loveconstitution1789]

Its based on rule of law and secure borders, Tony. Nothing else.

How does the US economy work, Tony? I would like a socialist like you to enlighten us on how the US economy works.

[Elias Fakaname]

Tony, who regularly makes anti Semitic remarks, makes anything he doesn't like about race. Yet he is the biggest bigot (he should have that emblazoned on a t-shirt) of,them all.

[mpercy]

And if I say that's not the case, that I'm just as opposed to white illegal immigrants from Ireland (there was a piece on CNN the other day about them) or from Russia or France or Canada as I am about illegal immigrants from China or Mexico or Nigeria?

My first guess is I'll be called a liar and therefore still gonna be called a racist.

The US takes in 1M people from all over the world legally each year. I don't think it's too much to ask that illegal aliens not be allowed to cut in front of the people who are following the rules. Maybe we need to streamline the process, but there's no reason to ignore it.

Also, you should review 8 U.S. Code ? 1324 and a few others for a tidy list of felonies illegal aliens will likely be committing on a daily basis.

[Tony]

You probably are a liar but if not then you're on the wrong side of American values, economic sanity, and being a decent person. Like illegal immigrants have such an easy time in this country. Jump ahead of what line? And of course immigrants commit less crime on average but you won't believe me.

[Elias Fakaname]

Tony everything you just said is pure projection of progressive evil, or complete bullshit. Now go drink some fucking Drano you evil piece of shit.

[Mark22]

Unlawful presence is the legal equivalent of a parking ticket--not even a misdemeanor.

Well, then let's make it a serious crime, like other countries do.

[Agammamon]

Arrest him for violating state law, send a notice to the feds about the violation of federal law. Try him for violating state law, when his sentence is over let him go.

If the feds want him for federal crimes or deport him they can come get him - and pay the costs of doing so.

[Last of the Shitlords]

Typical lying shitbag Tony. Don't agree with his progtardation? 'RACISM!'

Seriously, asshole, go commit suicide already. No one could ever love a bigoted, lying, bottom feeding piece of shit like you.

[Tony]

You're saving your best arguments for your newsletter, aren't you?

[loveconstitution1789]

I thought only racist socialists wrote newsletters?

[loveconstitution1789]

I like how people just gloss over the fact that this entire movement is grounded solely in racist hatred of Latinos. Whatever pathetic defense you make of laws like this, that's what the motivation is, because there's fuck-all to do with improving the welfare of Americans in any of this rhetoric or legislation.

Why, yes Tony, you figured it all out.

Letting in millions of latinos over the years was not racist of us racist Americans, but suddenly restricting illegals (mostly latino but also other nationalities) is racist.

[mpercy]

Imagine a person who's plane from overseas lands at JFK or ATL or LAX.

He gets off the plane, but instead of waiting in line to clear customs, he bolts through the gates, shakes off the customs agents who try to grab him, and runs through the airport. What happens to this guy? He might just be shot in the terminal. If he's lucky, he is tackled, cuffed, interrogated, and deported after serving a jail term for breaking half-a-dozen federal laws.

Why, then treat anyone wading across the Rio Grande any differently?

[Elias Fakaname]

Because 'open borders no matter what'!

[Hank Phillips]

"Arriving imigrants" were turned back after brief detention at the airport. River waders typically get detained for illegal entry and almost certainly are deported. But some go to the ports of entry and seek admission on foot with no visa. This jimmies the system because they have no return ticket the federales can use to about-face and send them packing. Once in a blue moon one of these will manage to receive an order of voluntary departure under safeguards by coming up with the cost of airfare. The advantage there is not being branded a deportee.

[Hank Phillips]

Readers, please observe that the nationalsocialist infiltrator and the international socialist infiltrator both imagine Latinia is a nation issuing passports to Patagonians, Puerto Ricans and Panamanians alike. Altrurians never learn...

[Elias Fakaname]

Do you think that. Onsense sounds clever somehow? No one usually knows what you're babbling about.

[Long Woodchippers]

Lefties always profess to know exactly why other people are doing things.

[Hank Phillips]

To them, the good guys are motivated by altruism and villains are in the pay of real estate developers and greedy corporations.

[Elias Fakaname]

Just like on an episode of 'The A-Team'.

[10mm]

I tend to ground my hatred in the politicians that willfully import 3rd world poor in order to bolster the voting rolls, welfare lists and cheap domestic labor.

[retiredfire]

"Latinos" are not the only people in the country illegally.
While "latinos" are not a race, by your own definition, you are the one being a racist by making the assumption that it is only "latinos" who are breaking our immigration laws.
Is there something inherently within the psyche, in your belief, of "latinos" that makes them the only ones who violate our nation's laws. What other ones do you presuppose they are inherently predisposed to violate, such that a law prohibiting it would be "racist" Do tell..

[Hank Phillips]

Whut about Puerto Ricans? We're as 'Murrican as HUAC--excepting maybe Lolita Lebrun. But even she was legal as sea salt... for a while.

[Mark22]

I like how people just gloss over the fact that this entire movement is grounded solely in racist hatred of Latinos.

You're projecting your own racism onto others.

No, I oppose people violating the immigration laws of the US. I don't care where those people are from.

In fact, Tony, if you weren't such a f*cking racist, you would support skill-based immigration, like most other advanced countries have, and oppose the current racist immigration system.

[Elias Fakaname]

Tony won't, he's pure evil.

[Juice]

State cannot force local police to serve as immigration agents and detain people for the feds.

I don't see why not.

Oh, it's a temporary injunction during a lawsuit. Got it.

[Hank Phillips]

Shucks. Back in 1832 South Carolina ordered local sheriffs to detain feds for The People!

[zombietimeshare]

Slowly moving from land of laws to a lawless land, one tiny step at a time.

[10mm]

Hmm, let me get this straight, a judge named Orlando Garcia ruled for Mexican illegals, whodathunkit.

[zombietimeshare]

Don't forget, appointed by Bill Clinton.

[Jon_Roland]

A federal law to do this would be unconstitutional, but the state may make any rules it wants for law enforcement officers within the state. There is a Fourth Amendment problem with indefinite detention, but the solution is for the DHS to issue an arrest warrant, which it could quickly do.

[ranrod]

In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

[BobKinford]

By the definition, any city government stating their city is a "Sanctuary city" are basically in violation of federal law by harboring people who are in the country illegally.

[Hank Phillips]

I was taught the fugitive slaves went to Chicago and friendly cities in Connecticut. And in angry editorials denouncing scofflaws the Christianizers called such harboring "Nullification."

[Bruce 6225]

It says "State cannot force local police to, ya da ya da" Reply: no, the law does that!!

[Mark22]

There is an attitude among some who want more enforcement of immigration laws that a person in the country illegally has no rights and can be treated as a convicted criminal. It isn't true as a legal matter.

Nice straw man, but a mischaracterization of the position people who oppose illegal immigration actually have.

A person cannot be held by local police for an indeterminate amount of time simply on suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

If there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has violated the law, local police are able to detain a person "for an indeterminate amount of time" until the identity of that person has been determined.

Obviously, in the US, police can't just stop random people on the street without suspicion that a crime has been committed (they can do that in most other Western democracies). But saying "well, too bad, we can't enforce immigration laws" is not the answer.

The US should make it easier for Americans to document their citizenship by further streamlining the system of standardized birth certificates. In addition, proof of citizenship or legal presence should be required by law for all government services and employment. And there should be a well-defined legal process for dealing with people who can't or won't provide the information, and that process can't be "oh, too bad, go on your merry way".

[Jonathon]

Are we talking about those in the U.S. illegally or those who are in the U.S. legally but undocumented?

[tommhan]

Cities should comply. We should all care about the safety of our country and our borders. This protection for criminals is insane and needs to stop. Immigration can and should be done legally.

[tommhan]

Cities should comply. We should all care about the safety of our country and our borders. This protection for criminals is insane and needs to stop. Immigration can and should be done legally.