AG Garland Threatens To Sue Texas Over Immigrant Travel Restrictions

"The United States intends to pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government."

On Wednesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order No. GA-37. This order was motivated by a recent report that Border Patrol released a migrant family to a Whataburger because they had COVID-19. The order provides, in part:

1. No person other than a federal, state, or local law-enforcement official, shall provide ground transportation to a group of migrants who have been detained by CBP for crossing the border illegally or who would have been subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order.
2. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is directed to stop any vehicle upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of paragraph 1, and to reroute such a vehicle back to its point of origin or a port of entry if a violation is confirmed.
3. DPS is authorized to impound a vehicle that is being used to transport migrants in violation of paragraph 1, or that refuses to be rerouted in violation of paragraph 2.

When I reviewed this order, I immediately thought of Arizona v. Texas. It is unclear how this order would even be enforced, but this policy would seem to conflict with federal immigration policy. I fully expected the Biden Administration to sue. I said as much to the local Houston NBC affiliate.

And, to no one's surprise, Attorney General Garland has sent a demand letter to Governor Abbott. It relies on Arizona:

Moreover, Texas has no authority to interfere with the United States' "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration" by impairing the United States' release of individuals and the ability of those individuals to comply with federal immigration law. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 395--416 (2012). To the extent the Order interferes with immigration enforcement, the Order is unconstitutional.

At the end of the letter, Garland threatened to sue.

In short, the Order is contrary to federal law and cannot be enforced. Accordingly, consistent with its authorities under federal law, the United States will continue its noncitizen transportation operations unabated. I urge you to immediately rescind the Order. If you do not do so, I am providing notice consistent with Section 1-10 .100 of the Justice Department's Justice Manual that the United States intends to pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government. 

I suspect a suit will be filed in the Western District of Texas-Austin division quite soon.

Comments

[Dilan Esper]

Blackman's right here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if you view this as a COVID policy. As such, it's every bit as legal as General Mills' closure of the Maine border, and the 1st Circuit upheld that one.

The executive order may have to be reworded, but as the Mexican Border technically is closed, Texas has the right to prohibit the transportation of anyone who has recently crossed it -- much like Maine did. Actually a greater right because there is *also* a closed Federal border in addition to a closed STATE border.

As an aside, the real issue here is the seizure of vehicles because that *will* stop it.

[James Pollock]

Gee, wouldn't it be a shame if all the states that border Texas were to reroute the illegals back to Texas?

"As an aside, the real issue here is the seizure of vehicles because that *will* stop it."

Assuming people are using their own cars to transport illegals, it might. Or it might get them to start using other peoples' vehicles.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

What is Blackman doing with his hair? Pre-covid, it was always high and tight. Now? Phil Spector or Sean Penn in Carlito’s Way? He seems pretty fearful of Covid still, so maybe he’s avoiding the barber even if fully vaccinated. None of my business, but a bit surprising.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, that look actually requires work to attain. Why anybody would WANT to attain it, that's the question.

[Kid Handcock]

He wouldn't be noticed otherwise? Better to look weird and be seen, than to be overlooked? It also prevents him from being seen as an irredeemable deplorable by other faculty who are left wing?
I mean you've got to forgive a guy his political views if he looks weird enough.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I would like to see DeSantis arrest Cuban migrants that show up in Florida on rafts. 😉

[Spinach Chin]

The difference is, Cubans actually meet the definition of refugee.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Nope, they are economic refugees like all of the migrants from Central America. Nice rationalization though. 😉

[wreckinball]

I think there is a much larger element of political persecution in Cuba wouldn't you say? Does Mexico prevent folks from leaving the country?

[ILK]

Cuba abolished exit bans in 2013, at least officially.

[James Pollock]

"I think there is a much larger element of political persecution in Cuba wouldn’t you say? Does Mexico prevent folks from leaving the country?"

If Cuba's preventing folks from leaving Cuba, who exactly is it who keeps washing up in Florida?

[Milhouse]

To the extent the Order interferes with immigration enforcement, the Order is unconstitutional.

The order does not interfere with immigration enforcement, it interferes with the deliberate refusal to enforce.

[Jaypd]

Look Eugene, this guy is an idiot! Show us how the first amendment fixes this complete moron again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly.

That was the problem with the Arizona case Blackman cites.

The supremacy clause makes federal law supreme, the Supreme court decided to make executive branch decisions to not enforce federal law, supreme.

In a sane world, Arizona would have won that case by citing the supremacy clause itself!

[Dilan Esper]

The supremacy clause makes federal law supreme, the Supreme court decided to make executive branch decisions to not enforce federal law, supreme.

The Court was correct. Let's say the federal government reforms its drug laws, and deliberately imposes some extremely light punishments on certain drug-related activities that are seen as victimless crimes as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme. Why shouldn't THAT preempt the states?

And if that can preempt the states, why can't a federal policy decision that taking certain actions against certain lawbreakers would be inhumane, unjust, and/or racist preempt them as well? Such decisions are also the Supreme Law of the Land.

[Brett Bellmore]

"why can’t a federal policy decision that taking certain actions against certain lawbreakers would be inhumane, unjust, and/or racist preempt them as well? "

Because the Supremacy clause has actual words, not just some vague sentiment?

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"

You see anything in there about policy decisions? Let alone policy decisions that contradict "the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof"?

The Supremacy clause makes federal LAWS supreme, not Presidential decisions to violate the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

That's what I meant that, in a sane world, Arizona would have won the case by citing the clause itself. They had the Constitution on their side!

[James Pollock]

If the federal policy is to divide immigration enforcement resources equally among border states, why not let one of the pre-empt the decision? After all, the feds have infinite resources, right?

There's exactly one point where anyone made a decision to specifically NOT enforce immigration law, and that point was DACA. The rest of the non-enforcement comes from Congress, which chose not to increase the number of people authorized to hold deportation hearings, when Obama specifically asked for legislation to lift the cap on people allowed to hold the hearings.
Who was running Congress at the time, Brett? By any chance, was it your chosen party? It was? Say, how will you explain that away?

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, the Supremacy clause specifies laws, and makes no mention of policy. So the federal government has no claim on a supremacy clause basis to bar state actions which are in line with, not opposed to, federal law.

"There’s exactly one point where anyone made a decision to specifically NOT enforce immigration law, and that point was DACA."

No, that's the point at which somebody admitted to having made a decision specifically not to enforce immigration law.

[James Pollock]

" the federal government has no claim on a supremacy clause basis to bar state actions which are in line with, not opposed to, federal law."

Which is not relevant to state laws that are not in line with federal law. The state cannot hold its own immigration hearings.

[David Nieporent]

The Court wasn't correct. The issue presented in the case was not whether federal law preempted the Arizona law. The issue presented in the case was whether the president's decisions about whether/how to enforce federal law preempted the Arizona law. And the Supremacy Clause says nothing about that. It says that the Constitution and the Laws made pursuant thereto are the Supreme Law of the Land. Arizona was just proposing to enforce those laws. Now, it's possible Congress could have banned Arizona from so doing, but the president can't.

[James Pollock]

Sure. we should have let individual states set federal policy. Great idea. Which state has the highest population, let's let them make all the decisions! Guess what, the new federal priorities will be earthquake readiness and wildfire prevention.

[David Nieporent]

Congress sets federal policy.

[James Pollock]

No kidding? Gee, then I sure feel silly suggesting that that the states do not.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're talking about state policy here, not federal policy. Individual states are indeed entitled to set state policy.

Now, if Texas started ordering ICE around, THEN they'd be trying to set federal policy.

[James Pollock]

"Now, if Texas started ordering ICE around"

How about if they start filling up the deportation hearing docket, precluding other states from getting any?

[jdgalt1]

The order does not interfere with immigration enforcement, it interferes with the deliberate refusal to enforce.

Bingo. And I would go further and argue that the flood of illegal immigrants constitutes an invasion, so if Abbott feels the need he can mobilize the National Guard and fight to keep them out (Article I, Section 10).

[James Pollock]

Surely Texans won't mind the public expense of feeding, clothing and housing all those prisoners of war they've taken?

[Kid Handcock]

If they immediately repatriate them, there's little public expense. If they come back, try, convict and rent them out to China as "labour".

[James Pollock]

Texas gets airline tickets for free?

[Krayt]

motivated by a recent report that Border Patrol released a migrant family to a Whataburger because they had COVID-19.

If true, arrest the border patrol agents. Just because your feds doesn't mean you get to commit crimes like infecting people.

[Brett Bellmore]

The federal government then takes over the case and drops the prosecution. In theory feds don't get to commit state crimes. In practice, they do if the administration has their back.

[James Pollock]

" In theory feds don’t get to commit state crimes. In practice, they do if the administration has their back."

To make this assertion stick, you first need to show that anyone committed a state crime. Is it a crime in Texas now to allow people to buy food? To leave a person be? Way to press the libertarian viewpoint, Brett!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's Krayt suggesting the feds violated a state law. I'm pointing out that, even if they did, a state prosecution would typically be futile if the federal government wanted it to be. Ask Lon Horiuchi if you want the details.

[James Pollock]

"It’s Krayt suggesting the feds violated a state law."

Funny, I could have sworn that I cut and pasted from the comment I was replying to, which has YOUR name attached to it.

[Milhouse]

And the comment you were replying to does not state that the feds violated a state law.

[jb]

FWIW, that's not what the article says at all. It says that the Border Patrol placed the family with a Catholic Charity and then several days later the family went to get food at Whataburger.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And vehicle confiscation will put an end to Catholic Charities being involved in this stuff...

[James Pollock]

Special Ed never heard of the fifth amendment.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Using government force to prevent religious ministry. Much conservative.

[Kid Handcock]

Clergy don't get to commit crimes, simply because they're clergy.

[James Pollock]

"Using government force to prevent religious ministry. Much conservative."

Have they switched direction and decided that Catholics are Christians now?
Because when conservatives insist on things in favor of religious freedom, they mean Christian religious freedom. Persecution of other religions is and always has been just fine with them.

[Milhouse]

That's an outright lie which is easily disproved simply by looking at the religious freedom cases they've litigated over the past 50 years and more.

[Thomas L. Knapp]

The government of the United States not only doesn't enjoy "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration" under the US Constitution, it enjoys no such power at all.

Article I, Section 9 forbade any federal power over immigration at all prior to 1808. After 1808, a constitutional amendment would have been required to create such a power. No such amendment having ever been proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, all federal immigration laws are, per Madison v. Marbury, void.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Article I, Section 9 forbade any federal power over immigration at all prior to 1808. After 1808, a constitutional amendment would have been required to create such a power."

You notice the internal contradiction there? The Constitution didn't have to forbid the exercise of powers which would require a constitutional amendment to create in the first place. The very fact that exercising the power was forbidden prior to a specific date implies that the power WAS understood to be possessed by the federal government.

[jb]

Yeah, there's no plausible reading of Article I, Section 9 other than this.

[Milhouse]

No, Brett, that doesn't follow at all. That clause forbids Congress, not from regulating immigration, but from prohibiting the migration or importation of such persons as any of the 13 original states may choose to admit. In other words, slaves. The framers didn't want to use that word, because so many of them were abolitionists, so they got around it with that locution.

Congress's power to prohibit such "migration or importation", which it exercised as soon as it could, came not from some unstated but somehow magically implied immigration power, but from the Commerce clause: "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Importing slaves is commerce; people immigrating of their own volition is not.

[Dilan Esper]

Scalia took this position, but the rest of SCOTUS, correctly, said he was full of it. The views of one justice are not constitutional law.

[wreckinball]

Well the Feds have decided to not enforce the law. Let's say for example, the gov't decides it's legal to shoplift. Not theoretical see CA.

Does a store owner have the right to hire security and prevent people form stealing from them? I would say yes. In fact they do it all time.

[jb]

"Let’s say for example, the gov’t decides it’s legal to shoplift. Not theoretical see CA."

WTF are you talking about? They literally just passed a law to clamp down on organized shoplifting rings.

[Brett Bellmore]

But retail shoplifting? It's a misdemeanor in California so long as you steal less than $950 worth of merchandise. And California police aren't supposed to arrest for misdemeanors anymore. And a lot of prosecutors don't consider it worth prosecuting, either.

So, not technically "legal", but not enforced.

[jdgalt1]

This is the core of our national problem right now. Democrat prosecutors have decided that crime, even serious crime, by blacks is a civil right and won't prosecute it. I'm betting the American people will use any means necessary to prevent that from continuing to be law in the practical sense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Any means necessary? So you're just going to murder shoplifters, eh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't laugh.

I know of a now-closed KMart which attempted to deal with its significant shoplifting problem by hiring thugs from the local high school to "discourage" it -- knowing that as these were minors, there really would be no accountability for what they did.

(It wound up driving away its customers -- but KMart had bigger issues....)

[David Nieporent]

I know of a now-closed KMart which attempted to deal with its significant shoplifting problem by hiring thugs from the local high school to “discourage” it — knowing that as these were minors, there really would be no accountability for what they did.

No, you don't.

[James Pollock]

He imagines he does, and that's close enough for Special Ed.

[James Pollock]

I can believe that he knows of a store run by extremely stupid people (likely his family members worked there)

[KCar]

At what point is lethal force justified to stop someone from taking their property?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Never. The end.

[David Nieporent]

At what point is lethal force justified to stop someone from taking their property?

Whose property?

Yours? Never.
Mine? ASAP.

[James Pollock]

Is this an example of the legal advice you offer that I'm not qualified to have opinions on?

[David Nieporent]

Yep. It's black letter law.

[James Pollock]

This sort of thing is why I decline your advice.

In case you were wondering why.

[Brett Bellmore]

He means they'll recruit BAMN, obviously.

Seriously, one of the traditional reasons for the government prosecuting crimes against people is to discourage private retaliation. You decide you're going to let some group rob some other group without legal consequence, sooner or later you'll get illegal consequences showing up.

[Kid Handcock]

Not murder. Kill.
It's self protection. Property is life. When some steals or robs you, they are robbing you of the life you put into making or owning that property. You may not feel that way because you've never produced anything real, or facilitated that production.
States could make it legal to use lethal force to protect property.
I'd rather looters were shot on sight, and robbers and muggers and thieves shot than society destroyed. Government and Laws are instituted to protect the good girls and guys. Outlaws, Brigands, Thieves are a pestilence, and loose their rights, when they prey on the rights of others. If they surrender before they can be shot, then they must be sentenced to labour to repay those they stole from. If they refuse to labour, then they get no food. If they murder, then death or lifetime slavery is their just due. Dead Murderers, murder no more.

[James Pollock]

You stole my time reading that crap^^^.
I propose capital punishment.

[Jerry B.]

Federal Government: "People must wear masks indoors and quarantine if infected to prevent the spread of Covid-19."

Federal Government: "If a State tries to enforce these rules against illegal immigrants, we'll sue them."

[Soapbox]

Governor Abbott: "Local governments and businesses are subject to fines if they require masks or vaccines"
Governor Abbott: "We need to racially profile Latinos in order to protect the public from COVID"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Racially profiling Latinos as to citizenship status is far less offensive than a LOT of things that have been done in the past 18 months.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s less offensive to you, maybe. The people who actually get profiled? Not so much!

[James Pollock]

"Racially profiling Latinos as to citizenship status is far less offensive than a LOT of things that have been done in the past 18 months."

That's why we didnt' let His Royal Orangeness keep being President.

[Captain Motion]

Garland will sue unless someone calls him and reminds him that his statists' decoder ring will be recalled and that he should tread carefully before he does anything to upset the power structure. Misdemeanor and low grade felonies for street-level seditionist insurrectionists who tried to effect a coup is okay, but don't get hardcore about them, don't go after the true prime movers of the attempted coup, and don't file any suits that will upset the big guys!

[PaulS]

Would it work if the order impounded the vehicle and as a "courtesy" required that the occupants be returned to their legal residence or closest border (state border if from another state, international if not us residents)?

[James Pollock]

Here's when it's OK for the government to take property from people A) after convicting them of a crime involving that property somehow, or B) after paying them the fair market value of that property

[PaulS]

They would be impounding the car for some form of illegal operation (no different than impounding/towing away for DWI) - enforcement of motor vehicle laws has always been allowed by the sate. They can get the car back

[James Pollock]

So, in your opinion, they CAN start seizing cars for DWH?

[John Rohan]

Moreover, Texas has no authority to interfere with the United States' "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration" by impairing the United States' release of individuals and the ability of those individuals to comply with federal immigration law.

Great! So how soon will Merrick Garland crack down on sanctuary cities??

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, because its not interference and in fact the anti-commandeering doctrine (something conservative jurists created) doesn't permit the federal government to enforce federal law. So if a state doesn't want to cooperate with federal immigration authorities at all, they don't have to.

[John Rohan]

In this case Texas doesn’t want to cooperate with federal immigration authorities at all, so they don’t have to?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, because they’re taking active steps to enforce their own immigration restrictions in contravention of federal law and policy. If the feds don’t want these people detained, then Texas has no authority to detain them on their own for purely immigration related reasons.

Sanctuary cities by contrast just don’t have their local police hold people on immigration detainer requests from the feds. The feds can’t make a local jail hold anyone they don’t want to.

[KCar]

Can you remind me again of the federal immigration laws?

[LawTalkingGuy]

They are vast and complicated and do not mandate that any immigrant be detained indefinitely, so if the federal government chooses to not detain people while their cases proceed, the state cannot interfere in that choice.

[James Pollock]

Not to mention the problems inherent with sweeping people up on suspicion of being illegal. The problem is that such sweeps ALWAYS seem to grab up some citizens, and the citizens are unambiguously entitled to rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"in contravention of federal law and policy. "

In contravention of federal policy, and in alignment with federal law. That's the key point here in the analysis: The federal policy is contrary to the federal law. It's a policy of not upholding the law!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Where in the law does it mandate the detention of any and all migrants in detention facilities while their cases proceed?

[James Pollock]

" The federal policy is contrary to the federal law."

Is it? the federal law says that people get hearings before they get deported. The policy is to leave them free, feeding, clothing, and housing themselves and their dependents at their own expense until they can get a deportation hearing, rather than feeding, clothing, and housing them at public expense while they wait. Surely a Republican can support THAT policy? No? How about if I point out that this policy originated with St. Ronnie?

[Milhouse]

(something conservative jurists created)

Huh? How do you figure that? Abolitionists were conservative in your book?!

[Harvey Mosley]

Abbot can use the left's defense: But Covids!

[James Pollock]

Or he could use the Right's defense: "Of course it's stupid! That's what we DO!"

[Soapbox]

So Abbott makes it illegal for local governments and businesses to require masks or vaccines, but implements profiling of Latinos to protect the public from COVID? If that's not transparent racism I don't know what is

[Ben of Houston]

It's not profiling. We know that they were illegally in the state. We know that they were deliberately released.

Now, if they said "Alert, brown people, panic!" That would be profiling.

This is simply a brazen refusal of the federal government to enforce the laws that are written and on the books.

[LawTalkingGuy]

1. Not every migrant needs to be detained while their cases proceed. So it is not a refusal to enforce anything.

2. How are the officers supposed to know that by looking at a vehicle?

[James Pollock]

"2. How are the officers supposed to know that by looking at a vehicle?"

DWH

[Kid Handcock]

NOT MIGRANT ! IT'S ILLEGAL ALIEN !!
They should be shot out of a cannon back over the border from whence they came. All 22 Million++.
It could also be a public spectacle, admission could charged for good viewing seats. Like Ringling Bros used to shoot people out of their "Cannon" across all 3 rings, into a net.
Bleeding hearts can give money to set up nets on the other side of the border, to "net" these invaders, but that's up to them.
Enough of The Left and pseudo-libertarians who are destroying this nation and western civ.

[James Pollock]

How about when (not if) they grab up some American citizens because they "looked illegal"? Shoot 'em out of the cannon, then work it all out later?
Hint: People who are targeted for deportation get to have a hearing at which they may make a case that they should not be deported because of some element of U.S. law.

[James Pollock]

"It’s not profiling. We know that they were illegally in the state. We know that they were deliberately released."

Is this one of those things we know for sure because we just know for sure?

[MonitorsMost]

I wonder to what extent this analogous to the United States v. California case on the sanctuary state bills. One of the provisions was California tried to prohibit private employers from voluntarily complying with immigration enforcement. The Court said that this may violate preemption but definitely violates inter-governmental immunity doctrine.

It’s not my area of practice, but that seems potentially relevant here.

[M L]

" Texas has no authority to interfere with the United States' "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration" "

It is doubted. The Constitution granted no authority to regulate immigration. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration

[Gospace]

Allowing people to illegally cross the border is a violation of federal immigration policy.

Doesn't seem to be a problem that judges are willing to address.

[Kid Handcock]

Eventually it will come to a bloodbath, because those of perverse nature protect the Criminal.
Our Children are indoctrinated by these people to become mindless acolytes of social destruction, just as Hamas and Hezbollah Youth are indoctrinated.
They want Western Civilization to fall.
Blood will be spilled on all sides.
Communist China and the Islamic World will watch in delight.

[James Pollock]

"Allowing people to illegally cross the border is a violation of federal immigration policy."

Unless it isn't. We allow refugees, like a civilized nation does.

[Kid Handcock]

Garland, the tool of Big Brother
I remember a number of profs and lawyers who were/are on this list who spoke of him sycophantically.
I'm glad he's not on SCOTUS.
You say "moderate" I sat "Totalitarian Elitist Tool".
You guys always take forever to catch on.
Just like you worshipped Saint Obama.

[Kid Handcock]

CORRRECTION: I "SAY" “Totalitarian Elitist Tool”.
Crippled fingers.
You really should face it, you here, are the arrogant privileged elite in your towers, never fought to protect your family, home, community, country, in real war, never produced, made, created, shelter, food, clothing for other producers in the community.
So privileged, and in such a mind bubble that you all share together, that you never can know what is outside. You certainly don't know that you are the parasites on the working class. Or you've willfully forgotten.

[James Pollock]

Whatever, Kid Handjob, wank on...

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't speak to Abbot, but I've met Allen West and he is impressive.

His House seat was stolen from him, and I'm really surprised he hasn't run for something since.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Every time a Republican loses it’s “theft.”

[David Nieporent]

I can’t speak to Abbot, but I’ve met Allen West and he is impressive.

Yes; a deranged loon in two different states.

[James Pollock]

If Allen West is good enough for Special Ed, that's a sign that he should never be placed in a position of power.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I like violence and thuggery!”

[LawTalkingGuy]

The problem is, that people think that this kind f violence an

[LawTalkingGuy]

This commenting system has been weird, it is posting a half formed comment.

Anyway when people think that violence and thuggery in real life is acceptable, they're leading to a situation where people feel entitled to act on it and commit murders.

[bernard11]

Why is everyone getting worked up over one of Ed's tales?

[James Pollock]

"Violence is often acceptable, nay, necessary in real life, at a minimum, to respond to thuggery toward oneself. It’s endemic to the human condition, and you cannot change human nature."

Take a closer look at who proposed thuggery in this comment chain, and in response to what. Even in Georgia, you can be arrested because of "protecting yourself" from someone who isn't a threat to you.

Th defense of "but he was running thhrough our neighborhood, and he's clearly BLACK!" wasn't persuasive enough to get them out of prosecution.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. And no one will ever convince me that murder in defense of property is morally acceptable, whether it is by government or anyone else. A human life is unique and valuable in a way property just isn't. You should only be permitted to use non-lethal force in defense of property. If the trespasser to goods or real property decides to then escalate to lethal force and you respond, then you are not acting in defense of property anymore, you are acting in defense of your life or the life of others, which morally justifiable.

TL;DR: there is no system of human morality (except the ones designed by selfish assholes to justify selfish-assholery) where it is acceptable to shoot a fleeing pick-pocket in the back until they are dead.

[James Pollock]

"Didn’t we have this debate at some point? The government kills people to defend property all the time"

For example, in this list of cases:
1.
2.
3.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"And your example is fallacious."

Why? What's fallacious about it? It's an example of killing in defense of property

Don’t bother to answer, unless you’re against it in both cases.

I could turn the question back on you and ask how you could call yourself pro-life when you seem to accept killing in a wide variety of unnecessary circumstances.

My view on abortion is 1) it can never be regulated in such a way that it would be possible for women to die from pregnancy complications because of lack of abortion access 2) I am opposed to government using violence or the threat of violence to force a pregnancy to term, particularly for someone who is the victim of a rape.

As for euthanasia this isn't exactly a "for or against" question. I mean, is taking organs from a brain dead organ donor euthanasia? What about deciding to discontinue treatment and enter palliative care?

[M L]

I confess I'm not familiar with it, but was this about naturalization? Congress obviously has enumerated power to establish uniform rules of naturalization. But that's different from immigration.

[James Pollock]

Yes, Hillary agrees. Every time a Republican loses it's theft.

[James Pollock]

Obviously, deciding who can become a citizen is TOTALLY different from who can become an immigrant. TOTALLY different subjects.

[Kid Handcock]

Funny, everytime a Democrat loses they call it theft, and riot for years.

You talk Law??
BS
You don't seem to understand what laws are for.
And it's not for stealing, or allowing stealing, from the good people, to empower The Rodef, the OutLaw, and Criminal, as you seem to think.

[James Pollock]

At least he doesn't base his opinion on things that are 100% imagination.

[Milhouse]

Yes, of course it is. Which is why one power is given to congress and the other is not. And look what naturalization is paired with — bankruptcy. So the people who drafted that clause were thinking of both subjects in the same light, as the sort of thing that, while administered by states, ought to have uniform rules, if congress chooses to make some. They didn't think of immigration as belonging in that category.