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

That is quite literally what the Tenth Amendment empowers them to do. They have the right to refuse to assist the feds. And they also have the right to control their own law enforcement officers.

 

Really? Care to explain how they don't share my opinion and how I don't understand the concept?

EDIT: After waiting a bit, I'm to go out on a limb and say you won't, because you don't understand the concept.

 

They don't have the right to make cooperation with the feds illegal.

That is not the same thing as "refusing to cooperate with the feds."

 

Yes, they do. They get to control their own employees. And it is in fact refusing to cooperate with the feds.

 

Why? The locals have the right to make and enforce their own laws. As long as those laws don't actively interfere against Fed laws.

 

Correct, the problem is this does.

 

They don't have a right to direct their employees to shield immigrants from ICE and simultaneously punish employees by law who cooperate with ICE.

These two together act as an obstruction of federal law enforcement.

 

Again, there's a difference between "shielding" and not cooperating. Actively shielding would be taking the migrants out of the jail cells and hiding them somewhere in the building if ICE turned up. Not cooperating is choosing not to alert ICE that they had migrants at the jail. The latter is both legal and constitutionally protected.

 

How?

 

The purpose of the law is to "shield" immigrants from ICE. It's in the name for Christ's sake. A sanctuary is a place of refuge. Refuge is a condition of being safe or "sheltered" from pursuit. Again, their intentions are not hidden. They're just smart enough to resort to lawyer speak at the right time.

Again the problem isn't in employees choosing not to alert ICE, nor in any legislature refusing to enact any policy that compliments federal immigration policy. The issue is in enacting legislation that blocks state and local officials from cooperating with ICE, or blocks ICE altogether.

 

So the issue is semantics? But not the actual law? Sorry, but the law trumps semantics, and the law doesn't actively force locals to prevent the Feds from doing anything.

 

It bans people from cooperating with the feds. If that doesn't "interfere against federal law enforcement," I don't know what does.

 

No, the issue is not semantics.

The issue is you're weaseling a legal justification for unconstitutional activity via false characterization. That characterization being that they're merely "refusing to help" as opposed to "acting in opposition to federal law enforcement by banning cooperation."

The latter is the accurate description and is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

 

Perhaps you are unclear on the definitions of the words here?

 

Passively preventing help is different than actively preventing someone from doing their job.

 

Legislating a ban is not "passively preventing help." It's actively preventing help, which is actively preventing someone at ICE from doing their job.

 

Which words and how?

 

They don't get to control their employees in a manner that blocks federal law enforcement.

Blocking employees from helping the feds is blocking federal law enforcement.

 

The legislation is an action. But it's legally telling locals they must be passively inactive.

 

You said some words here, but they make absolutely no sense.