A divided Supreme Court has lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out
Nope. Then again, not much is.... Normally, I like a decision that conforms to the intent of our Constitution. But do justices need to look at the context? IOW, is this working as the framers intended?
At least one. I missed this one.I'm curious how many more threads will get merged into here.
Oh, and "Yay!"
I would say that in order for a state to interfere with federal obligations the Feds would have to first fulfill that obligation. Then a state would have to act to prevent that obligation from being fulfilled.Earlier today, I read the wording of the lower court which originally slapped this one down and it raised some questions for me. I don't have the quote, but it basically said that it was never the intention for the states to interfere with the federal obligation to protect our borders. That makes sense. But what if the feds are NOT fulfilling their obligation? Normally, I like a decision that conforms to the intent of our Constitution. But do justices need to look at the context? IOW, is this working as the framers intended?
In the short term it is cheaper to bus them out of our state. They will still be illegally in our Country and a burden on its citizens.Cheaper to bus them out of state than to arrest and support them.
And eventually turned into voters or used to increase a state's representation, neither are good for the country.In the short term it is cheaper to bus them out of our state. They will still be illegally in our Country and a burden on its citizens.
We need the Donald back.Mexico says they will not accept them.
Mexico says they will not accept them.