Gibs me more programs and maybe I won't rape your daughter, gringo
Reuters:
A U.S. district judge in Austin has rejected an effort by Texas to have a law that would punish so-called sanctuary cities be declared constitutional ahead of the measure taking effect next month.
The Republican-backed law is the first of its kind since Republican Donald Trump became president in January, promising a crackdown on illegal immigrants and localities that protect them. Texas is the U.S. state with the longest border with Mexico.
How could anyone think this is a bad thing?
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, appointed under Republican President George H.W. Bush, dismissed the case without prejudice late on Wednesday.
Ahhh, It all makes sense now. He was appointed by the same guy who appointed the Obamacare approver Cuck Justice John Roberts
Shabbos Sparks also does his best to uphold the ancient, sacred right of baby murder afforded to shield maidens for thousands of years.
The brief ruling did not give a reason.
This seems pretty familiar... but why?
Oh yeah that's right, the same thing happened to both of the muslim bans. I don't know about y'all, but I'm beginning to see a pattern here...
... I just can't figure out who's behind it
Senate Bill 4 calls for jailing police chiefs, sheriffs and possibly frontline officers who fail to cooperate with U.S. immigration officials. The measure also allows police to ask about immigration status during a lawful detention.
After the law was approved in May, Texas sued major urban areas, including Austin, El Paso and Houston, as well as civil rights groups, saying they backed policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration officials.
At a June hearing, Sparks asked why a court should declare the law constitutional before it took effect on Sept. 1. He also questioned why he should hear the case when most of the parties were part of a separate lawsuit over the same law being heard in a federal court in San Antonio.
wut?
I'm not a legal expert or anything, but isn't it YOUR JOB to decide if something is constitutional or not???
This cuck has gone even further beyond Full Retard
This bill is certainly a good start for Texas--comparatively better than the muslim ban which banned Iran but not Iraq (see pic above)--but it was too much of a good start; there was no chance of it going through with soy fed Boom-cucks still populating the court system.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights group that has argued in court against the law, on Thursday said the Texas suit was a farce aimed at distracting attention from the harm that would come with SB 4.
"This is a significant blow to the State, and its legal posturing has only resulted in wasted taxpayer money," Edgar Saldivar, senior staff attorney of the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.
So if the suit is a farce and wasted tax money, then why are you in court supporting the suit? And would you care to specify what harm the law would do?
He's obviously talking about the harm it would do to the vibrant population of Texas, but doesn't specify that because he doesn't want the "American" Civil Liberties Union to look like it cares about drug peddlers and rapists more than the native population.
In the federal case in San Antonio, a small border town and some of the largest Texas cities told a judge in June that SB 4 could lead to an immigration police state and establish illegal racial profiling. They asked the court to halt it, saying it was unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure that SB4 wouldn't lead to an immigration police state, although that's what Texas needs. The only reason the left says these things is to stoke up fear, but in doing so, they help our movement immensely.
It's pretty easy to imagine a white Houston resident reading this and thinking, "hmmm, maybe an immigration police state wouldn't be too bad".
They did the same thing with this epic pro-Hitler ad during the primaries!
