Third world illegals when they wanna reach the supposedly best country of the world: goes through the trump wall with a high risk of getting unsubscribed from life.
Me, a third world poor intellectual who knows USA bad: buys a plane ticket with disgust to visit one of the McDonald’s restaurants in burger and freedom land just for the lols.
Sotomayor had a good rebuttal to this. Made good points, one of which is about maintaining security: with this new Texas law, if you’re a non citizen, you’ll be very wary of reporting suspicious activity or crimes. If I’m a non citizen and witness illegal activity, I’m not going to be inclined to report it.
I think that some of the arguments Texas is making are silly but the overall reasoning isn’t ridiculous. State law can’t forbid people to enter who are allowed to enter by federal law (or allow people to enter who are forbidden to enter by federal law) but I don’t see any clear constitutional reason why a state cannot enforce a state law against someone entering in violation of federal law. The federal government still has ultimate authority; it just needs to exercise it by changing the law rather than by failing to enforce existing law.
And, as a practical matter, letting Texas do this may be a way of addressing an issue voters care a lot about while bypassing both obstructionist Republicans in Congress and Democratic activists.
Wow. So they’re willing to let a potentially unconstitutional law be enforced while they let the courts rule. This isn’t if an app is misusing data or if a company didn’t pay its bills on time. This is if a state can do the Constitutionally-mandated job of the federal government.
I hope another state just blatantly starts setting and enforcing their own immigration policy that the Republicans shit their pants over so the courts can get a decision faster on whether the constitution fucking matters.
Every law is potentially unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says is isn’t. Here the court is just saying that this particular law isn’t so obviously and extremely unconstitutional that the ordinary process of appeals ought to be bypassed.
(I happen to think that the law is probably constitutional so IMO the Supreme Court is being reasonable, but I’m not a lawyer…)
It’s blatantly, abundantly unconstitutional. That hasn’t exactly stopped SCOTUS in the past, but it’s exactly as unconstitutional as the Feds having jurisdiction over pot possession.
It’s still ridiculous given the effect. People will be jailed and probably deported in the meantime. The guideline should be that if a law reduces individual rights it should be stayed until a decision is made. They’re not going to compensate anyone for wrongful imprisonment or reimport people that were ejected if this is ultimately struck down.
Add comment