Mexico’s top diplomat for North America rejected the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying that immigration policy was something to be negotiated between federal governments.
No, but the Treaty Clause means that states cannot make agreements directly with foreign governments, which Texas creating a new process by which to deport people that does not include handing them over to federal immigration authorities, but instead directly to Mexican authorities, would seem to violate. Our current agreements with Mexico all include Federal immigration authorities/ agencies.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot remove people from the federal election ballot under the 14th amendment because federal elections are a federal process and states can’t interfere with it. They also ruled Texas can enforce immigration laws even though it is a federal process and Texas is now interfering with it.
No, but the Treaty Clause means that states cannot make agreements directly with foreign governments, which Texas creating a new process by which to deport people that does not include handing them over to federal immigration authorities, but instead directly to Mexican authorities, would seem to violate. Our current agreements with Mexico all include Federal immigration authorities/ agencies.
I actually believe that this is a constitutional violation, as it pertains to deportations (but not arrests). ^
Considering that Mexico is denying they will cooperate with this law it seems a stretch to call it a treaty. And even if you do accept this logic, it is hardly explicit.
Mexico is saying they will not cooperate with Texas’ attempt to make a deal directly with them.
That doesn’t make Texas’ overtures towards making an agreement directly with Mexico okay; that’s still a potential violation of the treaty clause, which prohibits negotiation by states as well, not just the ratification of a treaty itself.
Sure, courts may not do anything about it (and given our current courts, probably won’t) unless it actually gets to the point where Texas is directly interfacing with another country, but if, for instance, Texas tries its tactic of putting immigrants on flights, but does it to foreign countries, I imagine federal courts are going to be BIG MAD.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
States should not control immigration policy full stop. It’s in the constitution explicitly.
And regardless of international relations, in Texas “looking Mexican” is now probable cause for an arrest.
deleted by creator
No, but the Treaty Clause means that states cannot make agreements directly with foreign governments, which Texas creating a new process by which to deport people that does not include handing them over to federal immigration authorities, but instead directly to Mexican authorities, would seem to violate. Our current agreements with Mexico all include Federal immigration authorities/ agencies.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot remove people from the federal election ballot under the 14th amendment because federal elections are a federal process and states can’t interfere with it. They also ruled Texas can enforce immigration laws even though it is a federal process and Texas is now interfering with it.
Is it though? What part of the constitution are you referring to?
I actually believe that this is a constitutional violation, as it pertains to deportations (but not arrests). ^
Considering that Mexico is denying they will cooperate with this law it seems a stretch to call it a treaty. And even if you do accept this logic, it is hardly explicit.
Mexico is saying they will not cooperate with Texas’ attempt to make a deal directly with them.
That doesn’t make Texas’ overtures towards making an agreement directly with Mexico okay; that’s still a potential violation of the treaty clause, which prohibits negotiation by states as well, not just the ratification of a treaty itself.
Sure, courts may not do anything about it (and given our current courts, probably won’t) unless it actually gets to the point where Texas is directly interfacing with another country, but if, for instance, Texas tries its tactic of putting immigrants on flights, but does it to foreign countries, I imagine federal courts are going to be BIG MAD.