Can you guess which outfit the lawyer who’s freaking out belongs to?
(Reuters) A small border town and some of the largest cities in Texas told a federal judge on Monday a new state law aimed at punishing sanctuary cities could lead to an immigration police state and asked him to halt it because it was unconstitutional.
The Republican-backed law in Texas, the U.S. state with the longest border with Mexico, takes effect on September 1. It is the first of its kind since Republican Donald Trump became president in January, promising to crack down on illegal immigration.
The law, known as Senate Bill 4, calls for jail for police chiefs, sheriffs and possibly frontline officers who fail to cooperate over U.S. immigration. The measure also allows police to ask about immigration status during a lawful detention.
It’s a simple concept: cooperate with federal authorities and stop sheltering people who are unlawfully present in the United States.
But Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the plaintiffs, said if the court upholds the Texas law it could have national ramifications.
“That would set up an immigration police state,” he told U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia.
How so? This article doesn’t explain, as I’m pretty confident that Gelernt would have provided more detail, and, if not, you can bet Judge Garcia demanded an explanation. Other than the Reuters article, I’m not finding any others that mention the “immigration police state” quote. But, it could be linked to this
(Texas Tribune) Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (WT: Surprise!) representing the city of El Cenizo, a small municipality in Webb County, argued that the law, as written is vague and provides such little guidance to officers that they will be forced to use a heavy hand when detaining or arresting someone. That, he said, will lead to a broad assumption that they need to ask nearly every minority their immigration status for fear of violating the provision of the law — the aftereffect of which would be an across-the-board erosion of Texans’ rights.
“The overriding point is that the penalties are so harsh that it’s simply unrealistic for any police officer to take a chance†of violating the law, Gelernt told U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia. “[The lawmakers] knew what they were doing when they crafted the legislation.â€
Perhaps Mr. Gelernt should actually read the law, because he’s being overly-dramatic, as the law doesn’t state what he feels it does. Back to the Reuters article for wrapup
“We could be removed from office if we endorse a policy that is different from the law,” Austin Mayor Steve Adler said outside court, adding that the law violates constitutional free speech protections.
What an amazing concept, being removed from office for endorsing a policy that protects people who are unlawfully present in the country, which is a violation, for one thing, of federal law. Specifically, 8 US Code 1324. And, by endorsing, what is meant is practicing.
