If someone were to only listen to the mainstream media, it could be inferred that most of the nation stands against President Donald Trump when it comes to matters pertaining to the border. That, however, would be a mistake to assume, as observed today by the Washington Examiner.
Not only is that notion highly inaccurate, but a “coalition of 18 Republican-led states is backing the Trump administration in its lawsuit against the state of California over” the states demand to be a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens shows just how inaccurate. While the open borders crowd may wish otherwise, many of these republicans were elected to office solely because they stand boldly on this most vital of issues.
The Texas Attorney General has shown that the gathering has filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” in California federal court yesterday. The filing supports the claims of President Trump and attests that these laws from the liberal state “hinder the federal government’s ability to enforce federal immigration law.”
In essence, California was just given 18 reasons to obey the law and the Department of Justice agrees.
This does not just involve one state’s rights because the migrants often enter into states that have not voted to have their border laws forsaken and that is why the matter is one of the few things that should be overseen by the federal government. America today has a tendency to want Uncle Sam to handle health care and issues that are doomed to failure when handled by the feds, yet they wish to use the state’s rights argument when it does not apply (such as here).
The brief addressed this very problem and reads, “Sanctuary laws and policies can cause harm to neighboring states by making it easier for people who are now lawfully in this country and have committed civil or criminal offenses to evade law enforcement and travel out-of-state.”
It also reads, “The states thus have an interest in the federal government’s ability to enforce federal immigration law.” Those who have lost family members or property due to such state hopping know only too well how this plays out. At last, the problem is being addressed on a grander scale, as many had hoped would be the case as President Trump was defied illegally.
In a 2012 amicus, the GOP spelled out their case and stated: “Congress has carefully regulated not only who may be removed from the United States, but how such individuals should be identified, apprehended, and detained.” Since that time, California is said to have “changed its tune,” and that is proving to be where the battles of today are stemming from.
“California may disagree with federal immigration policy—just as Arizona disagreed with federal immigration policy in Arizona v. United States,” the 18 states have written. “But if various Arizona laws designed to enforce federal immigration law were preempted in Arizona (as the Supreme Court held), then California’s law designed to interfere with or block federal immigration enforcement are equally preempted.”
The Examiner wrote that the attorney generals of “Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia filed the brief, as did Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and Maine Gov. Paul LePage.”
The fallout from California is affecting a lot of states far removed from them, and they are getting tired of it. When West Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina are voicing concern, the facts are clear.
Border laws are easy to read and understand, too. They say clearly that those who apply to be here are to be treated as one of the gang, so to speak. Those who defy the law are to expect nothing but a humane deportation.
Once that is understood by California, America will run much more smoothly.