Taken from UNIVISIÓN
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard this Wednesday in New Orleans the arguments of the federal government and Texas on whether or not the anti-immigrant law SB4 should come into effect—partially or completely—while the underlying case on its constitutionality is resolved. No decision was announced.
On the one hand, the Attorney General of Texas, Aaron Nielson, assured that when raising SB4, legislators analyzed what the United States Supreme Court has allowed in previous cases.
He was referring to the case of Arizona’s SB1070 law, which in 2012 was annulled largely because the highest court considered that states do not have the power to assume responsibilities in matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. This law, known as ‘Show me your papers’, authorized state police—like SB4—to detain anyone who appeared suspected of not having immigration status and established crimes.
In presenting his arguments, Nielsen had to admit – before the same three-judge panel that already stopped SB4 in previous days – that perhaps Texas legislators went “too far” with SB4.
When answering questions from the judges, Nielsen assured that “presidents change.” She said it when explaining that perhaps under another government SB4 would not be necessary.
On repeated occasions, Texas has defended that its law against undocumented immigration will allow the state government to stop entry across its 1,254 miles of joint border with Mexico.
The federal government took its turn after Texas. Once again, he questioned the constitutionality of this law by alleging that the immigration issue is an area completely within his jurisdiction.
SB4 is a “very extreme intrusion into federal government functions,” argued Justice Department attorney Daniel Terry.
#implementation #antiimmigrant #law #SB4
