Texas sanctuary cities can’t be punished by the state because that is not Constitutional? What?
A law designed to penalize Texas sanctuary cities has been partially blocked. While progressives are complaining that the judge only partially blocked the law, the federal judge’s reasoning regarding the part he did block makes no sense to me. Basically, the judge ruled that the Constitution makes immigration enforcement a private matter between the Feds and local authorities that the states can’t interfere in.
The Washington Times reports, “Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas’ ‘sanctuary cities’ law.”
A federal judge blocked parts of Texas’s strict new immigration crackdown law late Wednesday, ruling that the state cannot attempt to punish sanctuary cities for refusing to comply with federal deportation officers.
Acting less than 30 hours before the law was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia said it’s up to the federal government, not the state, to decide what sorts of cooperation localities must provide in the context of immigration.
But the judge left in place the new state law allowing police to determine the legal status of those they encounter during their duties.
The ruling is a substantial, though not complete, victory for sanctuary city defenders.
If it stands, it would head off any efforts in conservative-leaning states to punish jurisdictions who are balking at President Trump’s new efforts to enforce existing immigration laws.
“The mandates, penalties and exacting punishments under SB4 upset the delicate balance between federal enforcement and local cooperation and violate the United States Constitution,” Judge Garcia said, referring to the bill that wrote the anti-sanctuary policy into law.
For rank-and-file illegal immigrants, however, the judge’s decision to what critics call the “show-your-papers” law to go into effect is a major blow.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com