• Re: Arizona voters pass Prop 314, allowing local police to enforce immi

    From Mitchell Holman@21:1/5 to James Muenter on Sat Jun 7 01:54:44 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    James Muenter <[email protected]d> wrote in news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]:

    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though Arizona
    voters passed the act, portions of the bill won’t go into effect
    until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-314- allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/



    Local police don't understand their own
    state laws, much less federal laws.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to James Muenter on Mon Jun 9 09:27:12 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though Arizona voters
    passed the act, portions of the bill won’t go into effect until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-314-allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From slothe@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 10 19:28:01 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though Arizona
    voters passed the act, portions of the bill won’t go into effect
    until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-314
    -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge would
    be required to order police to transport them to a port of entry. A judge
    could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border Patrol agents to avoid
    separating children from their parents instead of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Ahlstrom@21:1/5 to slothe on Wed Jun 11 06:52:33 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    slothe wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:

    <snip>

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge would
    be required to order police to transport them to a port of entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border Patrol agents to avoid
    separating children from their parents instead of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/

    So the "migrant" gets 6 months of free room and board? ;->

    --
    Don't put too fine a point to your wit for fear it should get blunted.
    -- Miguel de Cervantes

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Siri Cruz@21:1/5 to Chris Ahlstrom on Wed Jun 11 04:22:39 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 11/6/25 3:52, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    slothe wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:

    <snip>

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border
    between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge would
    be required to order police to transport them to a port of entry. A judge
    could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico, and police >> could turn over migrant families to Border Patrol agents to avoid
    separating children from their parents instead of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/

    So the "migrant" gets 6 months of free room and board? ;->


    Homelessness is being outlawed with up to a year in jail.

    --
    Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-999. Disavowed. Denied. @
    'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
    The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 4.0 / \
    of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to slothe on Wed Jun 11 08:04:23 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102a100$3nv$[email protected]...
    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message
    news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though Arizona
    voters passed the act, portions of the bill won�?Tt go into effect
    until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-314
    -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge would
    be required to order police to transport them to a port of entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border Patrol agents to avoid
    separating children from their parents instead of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are they
    claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mitchell Holman@21:1/5 to Scout on Wed Jun 11 13:35:21 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote in news:102btpo$1vqd9$[email protected]:



    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102a100$3nv$[email protected]...
    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message
    news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though
    Arizona voters passed the act, portions of the bill won�?Tt go into
    effect until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-3
    14 -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico
    border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a
    punishment of up to six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the
    person could be charged with a second-degree felony and face up to 20
    years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge
    would be required to order police to transport them to a port of
    entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return
    to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border
    Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents instead
    of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-
    law/

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are they
    claiming is the Constitutional issue?






    What other federal laws do you
    want state police to enforce?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Siri Cruz@21:1/5 to Scout on Wed Jun 11 11:22:19 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 11/6/25 5:04, Scout wrote:
    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the
    Texas-Mexico border
    between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment
    of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could
    be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are
    they claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    What is acceptable as evidence?

    --
    Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-999. Disavowed. Denied. @
    'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
    The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 4.0 / \
    of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From slothe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 11 19:22:36 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 11 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:102btpo$1vqd9$[email protected]:



    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102a100$3nv$[email protected]...
    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message
    news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though
    Arizona voters passed the act, portions of the bill won�?Tt go into
    effect until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-3
    14 -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico
    border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a
    punishment of up to six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the
    person could be charged with a second-degree felony and face up to 20
    years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge
    would be required to order police to transport them to a port of
    entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return
    to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border
    Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents instead
    of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-
    law/

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are they
    claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    The Biden administration claimed immigration enforcement falls under the purview of the feds and interferes with immigration law. They weren't enforcing immigration law anyway, just letting Mexico invade the
    country.

    Leftists don't teach things like the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From slothe@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 12 00:39:38 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 11 Jun 2025, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> posted some news:[email protected]:

    "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote in news:102btpo$1vqd9$[email protected]:



    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:102a100$3nv$[email protected]...
    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message
    news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though
    Arizona voters passed the act, portions of the bill won�?Tt go into
    effect until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-3 >>>>> 14 -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico
    border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a
    punishment of up to six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the
    person could be charged with a second-degree felony and face up to 20
    years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge
    would be required to order police to transport them to a port of
    entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return
    to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border
    Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents instead
    of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-
    law/

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are they
    claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    What other federal laws do you
    want state police to enforce?

    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Josh Rosenbluth@21:1/5 to Scout on Wed Jun 11 18:06:47 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 6/9/2025 6:27 AM, Scout wrote:


    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though Arizona
    voters passed the act, portions of the bill won’t go into effect until
    the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-
    prop-314-allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    Per Arizona v. United States, federal law preempts state law when the
    two are in conflict.

    The Court held that Arizona's statute which made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in Arizona was preempted by federal law that already
    made unlawful presence a civil violation.

    The Texas law made it a state crime to cross the border illegally. But,
    that's already a crime under federal law. So, the question is (again)
    does the federal law preempt the state law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to Siri Cruz on Thu Jun 12 08:11:15 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "Siri Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102chgo$24bu6$[email protected]...
    On 11/6/25 5:04, Scout wrote:
    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the
    Texas-Mexico border
    between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment
    of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could
    be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are
    they claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    What is acceptable as evidence?

    Something which clearly violates the terms of the Constitution.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to slothe on Thu Jun 12 08:18:08 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102cl1s$k7f$[email protected]...
    On 11 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:102btpo$1vqd9$[email protected]:



    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:102a100$3nv$[email protected]...
    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message
    news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though
    Arizona voters passed the act, portions of the bill won�?Tt go into
    effect until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-3 >>>>> 14 -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico
    border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a
    punishment of up to six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the
    person could be charged with a second-degree felony and face up to 20
    years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge
    would be required to order police to transport them to a port of
    entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return
    to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border
    Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents instead
    of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-
    law/

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are they
    claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    The Biden administration claimed immigration enforcement falls under the purview of the feds and interferes with immigration law.

    They can claim anything they wanted.. doesn't make it factual or true.

    They weren't
    enforcing immigration law anyway, just letting Mexico invade the
    country.

    Securing their border.. which I believe states still have a right to do.


    Leftists don't teach things like the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    Leftists don't teach a lot of things.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to slothe on Thu Jun 12 08:23:47 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102d7k9$2re8$[email protected]...
    On 11 Jun 2025, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> posted some news:[email protected]:

    "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:102btpo$1vqd9$[email protected]:



    "slothe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:102a100$3nv$[email protected]...
    On 09 Jun 2025, "Scout" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:10275g7$lla8$[email protected]:



    "James Muenter" <[email protected]d> wrote in message
    news:10204cl$2tgr6$[email protected]...
    The proposition is modeled after a Texas law (SB 4) that the U.S.
    Supreme Court is reviewing for constitutionality. Even though
    Arizona voters passed the act, portions of the bill won�?Tt go into >>>>>> effect until the Texas bill is ruled constitutional.

    https://www.azfamily.com/video/2024/11/06/arizona-voters-pass-prop-3 >>>>>> 14 -allowing-local-police-enforce-immigration-laws/

    What Constitutional issue. Local police regularly are involved in
    enforcement of federal crimes, at least in the initial stages.

    It's modeled after a Texas bill under review for constitutionality.

    Some Biden camp judge objected to SB 4.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico
    border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a
    punishment of up to six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the
    person could be charged with a second-degree felony and face up to 20
    years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge
    would be required to order police to transport them to a port of
    entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return
    to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border
    Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents instead
    of arresting them.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest- >>>> law/

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are they
    claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    What other federal laws do you
    want state police to enforce?

    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

    Human trafficking
    Illegal Drugs
    Bank Robbery
    Counterfeiting.
    Murder of a federal agent.
    Kidnapping.

    There are entire areas of the law which are criminal violations under both state and federal law. Further the state has primary jurisdiction until and unless the federal authorities chose to assume authority over it.

    Indeed. The states would have a valid case to assert authority to act on
    their own if the federal government fails to provide adequate protection as required under Art IV Sec 4 of the Constitution.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mitchell Holman@21:1/5 to Scout on Thu Jun 12 13:19:18 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote in news:102eioa $2mj99$[email protected]:




    Leftists don't teach things like the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    Leftists don't teach a lot of things.



    Like chemtrails, or the killer vax,
    or the stolen election, or Jan 6 "patriots",
    or American Exceptionalism, or birtherism......

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mitchell Holman@21:1/5 to Scout on Thu Jun 12 13:16:06 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote in news:102eio8 $2mj99$[email protected]:



    "Siri Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102chgo$24bu6$[email protected]...
    On 11/6/25 5:04, Scout wrote:
    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the
    Texas-Mexico border
    between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have
    evidence
    that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person
    could be
    charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment
    of up to
    six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could
    be charged
    with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    Seems perfectly legitimate and legal to me. So what exactly are
    they claiming is the Constitutional issue?

    What is acceptable as evidence?

    Something which clearly violates the terms of the Constitution.



    Kinda like Trump accepting gifts
    from foreign countries.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Siri Cruz@21:1/5 to Scout on Thu Jun 12 07:14:48 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 12/6/25 5:18, Scout wrote:
    Securing their border.. which I believe states still have a right
    to do.

    They do not. States cannot regulate who can cross their borders.
    California agriculture inspection stations push this, but do not
    infringe enough to violate it.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause>

    Leftists don't teach things like the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    The treaty is why California has its marriage community property law.
    --
    Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-999. Disavowed. Denied. @
    'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
    The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 4.0 / \
    of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to Siri Cruz on Thu Jun 12 10:28:15 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "Siri Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102encl$2nlsi$[email protected]...
    On 12/6/25 5:18, Scout wrote:
    Securing their border.. which I believe states still have a right
    to do.

    They do not. States cannot regulate who can cross their borders.

    Just enforcing Constitutional law.
    Art IV, Sec 4

    If the federal government fails to fulfill it's obligation under the Constitution the State can take independent action to do so.

    An action supported by Federal Courts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Frogging.@21:1/5 to Mitchell Holman on Thu Jun 12 17:27:30 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    Mitchell Holman wrote:

    Kinda like Trump accepting gifts
    from foreign countries.


    That's OK as long as Trump provides them will a blowjob in return.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mitchell Holman@21:1/5 to Scout on Thu Jun 12 18:19:11 2025
    XPost: alt.politics.immigration, az.politics, sac.politics
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote in news:102eo6f $2nsbn$[email protected]:



    "Siri Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:102encl$2nlsi$[email protected]...
    On 12/6/25 5:18, Scout wrote:
    Securing their border.. which I believe states still have a right
    to do.

    They do not. States cannot regulate who can cross their borders.

    Just enforcing Constitutional law.
    Art IV, Sec 4

    If the federal government fails to fulfill it's obligation under the Constitution the State can take independent action to do so.


    That is NOT what the Article you cited says:

    "The United States shall guarantee to every
    State in this Union a Republican Form of
    Government, and shall protect each of them
    against Invasion; and on Application of the
    Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
    Legislature cannot be convened) against
    domestic Violence"

    Nothing in there about states
    enforcing federal law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)