"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
08/31/2017 at 14:17 • Filed to: None
1
4|
"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
08/31/2017 at 14:17 • Filed to: None | 1
| 4 |
A federal judge TEMPORARILY blocked most of Texas’s new “sanctuary cities” law that allows (not requires) police to ask about an individual’s immigration status during routing interactions with the public.
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia blocked portions of Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) requiring local law enforcement departments to comply with federal requests to hold unauthorized immigrants in custody. Also blocked: a provision that stopped local departments from implementing policies that would “materially limit” enforcement of immigration laws, the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! reported.
An aspect of the law permitting police officers to ask about immigration status was not blocked, but the ruling did limit the actions officers would be allowed to take after learning that a person was undocumented – officers could only report the person’s immigration status to federal authorities.
“U.S. Supreme Court precedent for laws similar to Texas’ law are firmly on our side,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. “This decision will be appealed immediately and I am confident Texas’ law will be found constitutional and ultimately be upheld.”
ttyymmnn
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
08/31/2017 at 14:39 |
|
law that allows (not requires) police to ask about an individual’s immigration status
Until the Feds and/or the state government start blackmailing cities in an effort to force compliance. The state government of Texas is famous for preaching about small government and then forcing its will on the cities. One of the more egregious examples of this came when they forbade cities from banning fracking . They also unsuccessfully came after Austin’s plastic bag ban.
Mercedes Streeter
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
08/31/2017 at 14:55 |
|
...law that allows (not requires) police to ask about an individual’s immigration status
“Allows” is still just about as bad as “Requires”. So, it doesn’t require racial profiling, instead it merely encourages it. Well, racial profiling is already a massive issue in many police forces so this would be the state saying “you know what, we’re not going to stop you from racial profiling!”
This enforcement is little different than those pathetic bathroom bills. The only way such laws can be enforced is through invasive and inhumane profiling. This country has way more important things to worry about than if the brown guy you stopped for going 5 over has his papers...
Xyl0c41n3
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
08/31/2017 at 15:06 |
|
For a brief explainer of why this bill is so problematic, please click here:
http://oppositelock.kinja.com/federal-judge-blocks-texas-racist-sb4-1798653127
nermal
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
08/31/2017 at 18:01 |
|
I’ll add the same conclusion here as I did to the other - What’s the fix? I see 3 main goals to achieve when addressing illegal immigration. First, dealing with the ones that are already in the US. I’m fine with deporting the criminals, but what about the ones that are contributing to society? How can we best give them a path to legal immigration?
Next, how do we deal with immigrants that want to come to the US? The goal here is encourage those that want to immigrate to do so legally, and discourage those that want to do so illegally.