The headline, and others, are framed as San Antonio suing. It’d be easier, and less costly, to simply stop being a sanctuary city and comply with the law, but, hey, if San Antonio want to blow their budget on a silly lawsuit protecting criminals, so be it
(NBC News) The city of San Antonio is suing the state of Texas and its governor to stop the state from implementing its new immigration enforcement law known as SB4.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal district court in San Antonio on behalf of the city, three non-profit organizations and San Antonio City Council Member Rey A Saldaña.
MALDEF is arguing in the lawsuit that the law, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last month, is unconstitutional on many fronts, threatens to unleash arbitrary and inconsistent law enforcement across the state and is discriminatory.
The lawsuit names the state, Abbott and Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, as defendants.
For all their caterwauling and excuse making, this is all about arbitrarily protecting people who have chosen to violate federal law, and to make sure that cities can continue doing so.
The three non-profit groups also suing are La Union de Pueblo Entero, founded by civil rights leader César Chávez and based in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, Texas Association of Chicanos in Higher Education and Austin-based Workers Defense Project, which represents low-income workers.
Illegal immigration hurts low-income workers the most. The mayor of San Antonio is not on board with this
As the Express-News first reported, Mayor Ivy Taylor is now publicly opposing the lawsuit the City of San Antonio plans to file over the state’s new immigration law. Here’s a prepared statement her office just sent us:
“I believe it was premature for the majority of City Council to give direction for city staff to join in a lawsuit against the SB4 legislation. In this case, the prudent course would be to wait until a decision has been made on whether a special session will be called. Additionally, I believe that any decision to join this lawsuit should be made in coordination with other major Texas cities, which is why I have consulted with Mayors Adler (Austin), Turner (Houston) and Rawlings (Dallas). We should be certain that litigation is the measure of last resort and that the city is bearing its fair share of any legal burden. None of these conditions have been satisfied, which is why I continue to oppose City Council’s decision to join this lawsuit.â€
But, the City Council joined in, apparently wanting to protect people who are unlawfully present in the United States over the legal citizens and residents.
The New Cons hate that The People are standing up against their New Fascism. The New Fascist State will run over anyone who interferes with their pogroms.
If “The People” really believe that the “New Fascism” is taking over, when it comes to immigration law, one would think that the representatives of The People in Congress would change the immigration laws. One wonders why that hasn’t happened.
I’m old enough to remember when the left were ecstatic that Hazleton, Pennsylvania, lost its case to fight illegal immigration in that town, the courts noting that immigration policy was the exclusive province of the federal government.
But, alas! the odious Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, a President committed to actually enforcing the law on immigration has taken office, and now the left want San Antonio, and other urban enclaves to be able to nullify federal law. The left loved the federal government and its authority . . . as long as Barack Hussein Obama was President. Now, not so much.
Kate Steinle was unavailable for comment.
The courts will decide if the new law(s) are Constitutional or not. Anytime the oppressed challenge the privileged orthodoxy they are said to be “caterwauling”.
TEACH typed:
You should find some scholarly support for your claim. Economists disagree with you.
From The Wall Street Journal:
Good enough for you?
How amazing it is that the strongest advocates for open immigration are the people who would not be hurt by it, are the ones who love having them some Mexicans to serve them their lattes.
Well, Dana, he ain’t no Paul Krugman.
