I’ll bet every time a judge shuts down the latest Trump effort to MAGA or a Blue State files a lawsuit to protect illegal aliens Demoncrats like Schumer, Shiff, Pelosi, etc etc get a big shit eating grin on their faces and think “Our plans are working”.
Related re Hochul (who just happened to be in DC when this came down) and Executive Order One.
Stefanik shreds her.
https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1933179667303002544
(it’s a beautiful thing)
It is secession. “Reconstruct” New York.
It is secession. “Reconstruct” New York.
Remember in Arizona v. U.S. (under Obama) when SCOTUS ruled that states could not make their own immigration laws. It’s amazing that there is apparently a “Trump exception” to that court ruling.
“Held:
1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.
2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182
If the criminals within your State’s Court Houses are wanted by the Feds, you have no right to keep Federal law enforcement from entering those buildings to capture criminals that have violated Federal law. Go punt.