Abbott is trying to kill or injure illegal immigrants coming to Texas

I bet there is fentanyl on that baby's diaper.

 

Lol. It’s amazing all the “sheep” that get fooled by “fake news”. Unfortunately, on this board, it only works one way

 

agree. Fox News had to pay $800M for lying and had internal discussions how they would lose viewers if they told the truth. It seems this group would see this and stop being so easily led and fooled.
Good post.

 

It’s both ways bud. That was my point. Was trying to be sincere on the problem with news. You just didn’t like it. Not sure what ur original post was. Maybe edit it again?

 

A good reminder that Democrats love guns and Democrats love the power of law enforcement. They just don't like it when they don't control either of those things.

 

I can certainly appreciate federal law enforcement when they're preventing state officers from abusing Black and brown people in violation of federal law. I know you Southern conservatives hate when federal law enforcement does that, but the Supremacy Clause says what it says.

 

I said nothing of the sort.

But race hustlers are going to race hustle. Par for the course.

 

Uh huh. Sounds like you tried to use an appeal to hypocrisy and fell on your face. Let's clear some things up to make sure you're not misunderstood:
1. Do you agree that federal law is supreme?
2. Do you agree that Texas is acting unconstitutionally in preventing federal law enforcement from carrying out its duty to enforce federal law?
3. Do you agree that it is a crime to impede federal law enforcement when they are attempting to enforce federal law?

 

1. Yes.
2. I agree that state authorities trying to block enforcement of federal law violates the Constitution.
3. Probably.

I'm sure if a Republican Presidential Administration just started locking up officials in sanctuary cities, you'd be screaming bloody murder though. Which is precisely my point. Yet here you are calling for that sort of thing in Texas right now.

 

There is a difference between state officials refusing to assist the feds in enforcing federal law (constitutionally protected - anti-commandeering doctrine) and state officials affirmatively impeding the feds from enforcing federal law. You have offered up a false equivalence.

For your analogy to be accurate, the officials in the sanctuary cities would have to be committing an actual crime. So yes, I would criticize Republicans for violating people's rights.

 

Yes, and sanctuary cities impede the feds from enforcing federal law. Proponents of the policy just don't frame it that way because they would run into some legal trouble if they did.

 

No, sanctuary cities refuse to assist the feds in enforcing federal law. There is a difference, and that decision is protected by the Tenth Amendment. See Printz v. United States. Texas could refuse to assist the federal government. What it cannot do is have armed state officers actively prevent the feds from enforcing federal law.

 

Deciding not to cooperate is different than interfering with law enforcement. Sanctuary cities don't help Feds when it comes to enforcing immigration laws, but they don't interfere with Feds officers either. If the interfered, they'd be breaking the law. The Texas officials reportedly did stop the Feds from attempting to save the migrants. Big, HUGE difference.

 

I agree they don't have to work with the federal government, but they cannot block or obstruct the federal government from doing their job.

I disagree that you have to be armed or an officer to trigger a Supremacy Clause issue. That's only relevant as to the extent of the obstruction, not whether there was a violation.

We simply disagree on exactly what sanctuary cities are in practice. Not what they claim to be, not how they're advertised by the cities themselves, how they are in practice.

 

City Council Expands Protections For Immigrants, Blocks CPD From Cooperating With ICE

"Chicago police will be prohibited with cooperating with federal immigration agents, after the City Council on Wednesday approved a plan to remove loopholes from the city's Welcoming City Ordinance."

Yeahhh...

How Sanctuary Cities Can Protect Undocumented Immigrants From ICE Data Mining

"And in California, a bill that would restrict state agencies and law enforcement from cooperating with ICE for immigration enforcement in all but a few circumstances has already passed the state Senate and has the support of the Assembly majority and Gov. Jerry Brown."

Biden Promised to Protect Sanctuary Cities. So Why is ICE Still Partnering With Local Cops?

"The state’s Democratic lawmakers passed a “sanctuary promise” law intended to reinforce immigrant access to social services and block local police from sharing information with ICE or detaining immigrants."

This isn't neutrality on immigration. It's shielding illegal aliens from the feds and PROHIBITING city and state officials from working with the feds.

Advocates of sanctuary cities don't even hide the ball with their intentions for the policy. But I will give them some credit, their lawyers are pretty clever in how they frame the policy. That's some Jeff Mathis level work there (baseball reference for those who don't know).

 

Refusing to cooperate is different than c actively preventing. All your examples stop city officials from cooperating. Nothing is actively preventing Feds from doing their jobs.

 

Going out of your way to block officers from cooperating with the feds via legislation is preventing. And they admit that's what they're doing.

It's not like they're taking some "hands off approach" to immigration. They took a side. The side they took is against ICE by prohibiting state and local officials from cooperating with them.

 

No it's not. The Feds have no right to have the locals help. The locals are under no obligation to share data or resources. The Feds need to ask for local cooperation, age the locals have the right to refuse. These laws just make it illegal for the locals not to refuse.

 

Neither Scalia nor Alito share your opinion per their holdings in Prince and Murphy. You simply don't understand the concept.

 

Correct. But that's not all the state and locals governments did now did they? Actively prohibiting cooperation is different from refusing to actively impose a duty to cooperate.

Correct. But they can't prohibit people in their state including local officials from working with the feds.

Correct.

And that's the problem.