• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal judge blocks Texas' tough 'sanctuary cities' law

S

Shard

XBLAnnoyance
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-texas-tough-sanctuary-cities-law/619168001/

AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge late Wednesday temporarily blocked most of Texas’ tough new “sanctuary cities” law that would have allowed police to inquire about people’s immigration status during routine interactions such as traffic stops.

The law, SB 4, had been cheered by President Donald Trump’s administration but decried by immigrants’ rights groups who say it could force anyone who looks like they might be in the country illegally to “show papers.”

The measure sailed through the Republican-controlled Legislature despite months of protests and opposition from business groups who worried that it could cause a labor-force shortage in industries such as construction. Opponents sued, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia’s ruling in San Antonio keeps it from taking effect as planned Friday — allowing the case time to proceed.

In a 94-page ruling, Garcia wrote that there “is overwhelming evidence by local officials, including local law enforcement, that SB 4 will erode public trust and make many communities and neighborhoods less safe” and that “localities will suffer adverse economic consequences which, in turn, will harm the state of Texas.”

“The Court cannot and does not second guess the Legislature,” he continued. “However, the state may not exercise its authority in a manner that violates the United States Constitution.”

Garcia’s order suspends the law’s most contentious language while suggesting that even parts of the law that can go forward won’t withstand further legal challenges.
Click to expand...
 
D

Doctoglethorpe

Member
I wish we could just move every immigrant out of Texas (to another state) and just see how they (Texans) like the reality of such a move. "Why is everything so good damn expensive here!?".
 
D

djplaeskool

Member
Guess where they're going to need all the labor they can get soon?
O69Os1u.png


Glad to see this blatantly unconstitutional exercise of powers get tabled . Fuck all Papers Please laws.
 
D

devilhawk

Member
This seemed like it was far more similar to the garbage in Arizona and less a law specifically about sanctuary cities.

I'm not shocked it got struck down at all.
 
G

GameAddict411

Member
It's seems that Judiciary system is only the branch of government that's putting the President in check. The Congress once again shows how partisan politics absolutely gutted it's authority. Damn shame.
 
Zoe

Zoe

Member
devilhawk said:
This seemed like it was far more similar to the garbage in Arizona and less a law specifically about sanctuary cities.

I'm not shocked it got struck down at all.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a "papers please" law--I don't know where that narrative is coming from.

This was about forcing law enforcement to comply with ICE detainer requests.
 
L

Lil'DigiOp

Member
GameAddict411 said:
It's seems that Judiciary system is only the branch of government that's putting the President in check. The Congress once again shows how partisan politics absolutely gutted it's authority. Damn shame.
Click to expand...

Its a fatal flaw in our system how in tandem the Legislative and Executive can be. Im glad the Judiciary is less flexible despite not agreeing completely with how its operated.


This shit is so timely... it makes no sense, Why can I see them trying to rush this pass to use on Harvey.
 
Zoe

Zoe

Member
dallow_bg said:
It really reads like a "papers please" law to me.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/08/5-things-know-about-sanctuary-cities-law/
Click to expand...

The part that was put on hold, regarding the retainer requests, was what made the bill so controversial and what everyone has been talking about all summer. This is the first I'm hearing of the "papers please" portion which wasn't what was struck down.

For the detainer request, the person has already been arrested for some offense, and it's already known that they are illegal. The Travis county sheriff was refusing to honor detainer requests except under a narrow set of offenses (which had to be expanded after one release went bad).

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/30/judge-temporarily-blocks-sanctuary-cities-law/

Garcia halted the part of the bill that required jail officials to honor all detainers, and another that prohibits ”a pattern or practice that 'materially limits' the enforcement of immigration laws."

The detainer provision, he said, would violate the Fourth Amendment

Garcia did let stand one of the most controversial portions of the law — allowing police officers to question the immigration status of people they detain.
Click to expand...

"Papers please" is still there.
 
D

dallow_bg

nods at old men
Zoe said:
The part that was put on hold, regarding the retainer requests, was what made the bill so controversial and what everyone has been talking about all summer. This is the first I'm hearing of the "papers please" portion which wasn't what was struck down.

For the detainer request, the person has already been arrested for some offense, and it's already known that they are illegal. The Travis county sheriff was refusing to honor detainer requests except under a narrow set of offenses (which had to be expanded after one release went bad).

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/30/judge-temporarily-blocks-sanctuary-cities-law/



"Papers please" is still there.
Click to expand...

Oh I knew about the detainer request but it was the other part that was more concerning for me. I'm surprised you didn't know about that part as I always heard about it on the local news and from protest leaders.
But now I see the papers portion still stands. That's disappointing.
 
T

thefragrance

Member
Zoe said:
The part that was put on hold, regarding the retainer requests, was what made the bill so controversial and what everyone has been talking about all summer. This is the first I'm hearing of the "papers please" portion which wasn't what was struck down.
Click to expand...

Damn that's terrible. But if I'm getting this right

“If during a lawful detention or arrest an officer obtains information that a detained or arrested individual is undocumented he may not arrest the individual on this basis,” he said, adding that the officer is not required to ask the question. But he said if the officer feels like they should, they can only share the information.
Click to expand...

people can just plead the fifth if an asshole officer asks for papers for a broken tail light?
 
Zoe

Zoe

Member
dallow_bg said:
Oh I knew about the detainer request but it was the other part that was more concerning for me. I'm surprised you didn't know about that part as I always heard about it on the local news and from protest leaders.
But now I see the papers portion still stands. That's disappointing.
Click to expand...

Probably cause the Travis County sheriff was a blatant target of the law, so that's what was talked about locally in Austin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pornhub suspends site in Texas due to state’s age-verification law
News 2 3
142
6K
SoloCamo replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
1K
AJUMP23 replied
Apple Sued by DOJ for Illegal Monopoly over Smartphones
2 3 4 5 6
270
13K
PaintTinJr replied
Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
9K
Topher replied
FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard
31 32 33 34 35
2K
125K
//DEVIL// replied
Top Bottom