The ultimate problem with federal-state condominium authority over what a state may undertake to police with respect to persons within its borders that depends upon documentation status (citizen, claimant to asylum status, entrant subject to summary deportation under federal law, person charged with violating state criminal law, etc.) is…
The ultimate problem with federal-state condominium authority over what a state may undertake to police with respect to persons within its borders that depends upon documentation status (citizen, claimant to asylum status, entrant subject to summary deportation under federal law, person charged with violating state criminal law, etc.) is that it ultimately implicitly defeats the right to interstate travel by making Texas the arbiter of who may freely pass and those who must assume the burden of proving lawful presence. Lawful presence is a matter of federal immigration law. The law has extended to anyone present in the US the right to claim asylum status without regard to the time required to process the volume of claims, most of which are unfounded. Texas wants to jump the queue to go directly to the merits of the claim. It’s easy to imagine conflicting state and federal resolutions as well as conflicting state resolutions.
You were doing so well and then you inserted “most of which are unfounded.” That is absolute bullshit.
Never mind, immigration is not on the list of things that contributed to our Third World outhouse status. Middle-age white guys they think they know stuff certainly are. They’re in the top three. They might be THE top three.
Steady on. By "unfounded" I should have been clear that I meant that the claims will prove ultimately unsuccessful because the legal criteria are very difficult to satisfy. It's obvious to me that people who go to the expense and risk of the trip to the border think it worth the risk compared to staying put. What makes it worth the risk is that even if the asylum claim fails they will be able to be somewhere much safer while the very long process plays out.
Unfortunately, immigration has become a political problem too useful to solve. Xenophobia is always popular in Jesusland, industrial agriculture prefers access to a workforce exploitable due to irregular residency status, and the hospitality industry would be unrecognizable. I had thought that before now the benefits of encouraging immigration would be obvious from an economic standpoint, but unfortunately economic rationality is something seen only on blackboards.
Was the shade about middle-age white guys meant for me? If so, you missed—I'm a 77-year old first-generation Mexican-American.
The ultimate problem with federal-state condominium authority over what a state may undertake to police with respect to persons within its borders that depends upon documentation status (citizen, claimant to asylum status, entrant subject to summary deportation under federal law, person charged with violating state criminal law, etc.) is that it ultimately implicitly defeats the right to interstate travel by making Texas the arbiter of who may freely pass and those who must assume the burden of proving lawful presence. Lawful presence is a matter of federal immigration law. The law has extended to anyone present in the US the right to claim asylum status without regard to the time required to process the volume of claims, most of which are unfounded. Texas wants to jump the queue to go directly to the merits of the claim. It’s easy to imagine conflicting state and federal resolutions as well as conflicting state resolutions.
You were doing so well and then you inserted “most of which are unfounded.” That is absolute bullshit.
Never mind, immigration is not on the list of things that contributed to our Third World outhouse status. Middle-age white guys they think they know stuff certainly are. They’re in the top three. They might be THE top three.
Steady on. By "unfounded" I should have been clear that I meant that the claims will prove ultimately unsuccessful because the legal criteria are very difficult to satisfy. It's obvious to me that people who go to the expense and risk of the trip to the border think it worth the risk compared to staying put. What makes it worth the risk is that even if the asylum claim fails they will be able to be somewhere much safer while the very long process plays out.
Unfortunately, immigration has become a political problem too useful to solve. Xenophobia is always popular in Jesusland, industrial agriculture prefers access to a workforce exploitable due to irregular residency status, and the hospitality industry would be unrecognizable. I had thought that before now the benefits of encouraging immigration would be obvious from an economic standpoint, but unfortunately economic rationality is something seen only on blackboards.
Was the shade about middle-age white guys meant for me? If so, you missed—I'm a 77-year old first-generation Mexican-American.
Thank you so much for the clarification. I am more than occasionally good miscommunication. Much appreciated. Well done.