Update — Scott offers a stupidly misleading post, in a supposed counter-point to the events surrounding SB 4 confusion. His whining about… nothing, speaks for itself — if Texas would obey federal law, and let CPB handle this, there would be no Texas state guard present to have their precious fee-fees hurt. End updated portion.
This is beyond ridiculous — that the government of Mexico itself, has been forced to enter a federal appellate courthouse in Cincy, to tell the US Judges that they are failing to apply their own laws (long settled), in a clear attempt to demonize people for their mere “Latino appearances“.
In addition, as the legacy graphic makes plain — this all may lead to Texas’s goods being “embargoed” by Mexico — by far its largest trading partner, outside the States. Damn. Do read it all — here it is — and a bit:
…The Government of the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) herein expresses its significant concerns over Texas Senate Bill 4 from the 2023 legislative session (“SB 4”) and underscores the importance of affirming the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Mexico’s interest arises from ensuring that its citizens are accorded human and civil rights when present in the United States of America (“U.S.” or “United States”) and that their ethnicity is not used as a basis for state-sanctioned acts of bias. Mexico is deeply concerned that SB 4 will be applied in a discriminatory manner and fears that its enforcement will lead to improper harassment, detention, removal, and criminalization of Mexican citizens and individuals of Latino appearance.
Moreover, if SB 4 is permitted to take effect, Texas would become a “show me your papers” state, unconstitutionally restricting freedom and diminishing the civil and constitutional rights and dignity of Latinos who live in and visit Texas….
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that state encroachment into immigration enforcement could be injurious to U.S. foreign policy. Beginning with Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court expressed concern that a California immigration law could “embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.” Id. at 280. In response to this possibility, the Court held the law unconstitutional and reasoned that the founders would never have “done so foolish a thing as to leave [immigration] in the power of the States to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the States the acts for which it is held responsible?” Id. The Court recognized that any diplomatic tensions created by one state’s immigration laws could accrue to the detriment of the entire United States, and thus emphasized the importance of speaking with one voice on immigration law. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the United States speaking with one voice on immigration in Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387 (2012), which invalidated many provisions of an Arizona immigration law like SB 4. Id. at 416.
The U.S. Supreme Court provided the most definitive statement yet on this principle, declaring that “[i]t is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States.” Id. at 395. The Supreme Court added that “[i]mmigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws,” id. (citing Brief for United Mexican States as Amici Curiae), and held that “[t]he dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.” Id. at 397.
The law is beyond clear that foreign nations must be able to confer with “one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States,” regarding the safety and security of their nationals. Ariz., 567 U.S. at 395. SB 4 wholly eviscerates this one-voice principle by requiring Mexico to engage with not only the U.S. government, but also several levels of state and local law enforcement in Texas to address individual apprehensions, detentions, and removals pursuant to SB 4… [Ed. note: the Arizona graphic is from 2010-12 and the case the Supremes decided back then, invalidating a similar measure — we covered it, in 2010.]
If an officer in Texas detains or removes a Mexican national with an uncommon immigration status and creates an international incident the federal government will be powerless to take action to allay Mexico’s legitimate concerns….
This is simply… lunacy. Unreal… what these jokers in Texas (chiefly, Gov. Abbott, and AG Ken Paxton) are doing, day by sad day. Onward, just the same.
नमस्ते
