In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I believe only the Federal government can make agreements with foreign states per the Treaty Clause, so Texas trying to interface directly with Mexico over processing deportations, especially for any processes they employ outside of the federally-established pipelines, would seem to violate that?
States should not control immigration policy full stop. It's in the constitution explicitly.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot remove people from the federal election ballot under the 14th amendment because federal elections are a federal process and states can't interfere with it. They also ruled Texas can enforce immigration laws even though it is a federal process and Texas is now interfering with it.
Is it though? What part of the constitution are you referring to?
No, but the Treaty Clause means that states cannot make agreements directly with foreign governments, which Texas creating a new process by which to deport people that does not include handing them over to federal immigration authorities, but instead directly to Mexican authorities, would seem to violate. Our current agreements with Mexico all include Federal immigration authorities/ agencies.
I actually believe that this is a constitutional violation, as it pertains to deportations (but not arrests). ^
Considering that Mexico is denying they will cooperate with this law it seems a stretch to call it a treaty. And even if you do accept this logic, it is hardly explicit.
Mexico is saying they will not cooperate with Texas' attempt to make a deal directly with them.
That doesn't make Texas' overtures towards making an agreement directly with Mexico okay; that's still a potential violation of the treaty clause, which prohibits negotiation by states as well, not just the ratification of a treaty itself.
Sure, courts may not do anything about it (and given our current courts, probably won't) unless it actually gets to the point where Texas is directly interfacing with another country, but if, for instance, Texas tries its tactic of putting immigrants on flights, but does it to foreign countries, I imagine federal courts are going to be BIG MAD.
And regardless of international relations, in Texas "looking Mexican" is now probable cause for an arrest.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The ministry condemned the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, saying it would separate families, violate the human rights of migrants and generate “hostile environments” for the more than 10 million people of Mexican origin living in Texas.
Mexico’s top diplomat for North America, Roberto Velasco Álvarez, rejected the ruling on the social media on Tuesday, saying that immigration policy was something to be negotiated between federal governments.
“Texas has taken a very combative stance,” said Rafael Fernández de Castro, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican studies at the University of California, San Diego.
A senior Mexican foreign ministry official who was not allowed to speak publicly said that the Supreme Court ruling would not affect existing migration agreements between the two countries.
While Mexico has served as the United States’ immigration enforcer, often discouraging migrants from massing at the border, the country has also publicly pushed for two key policies to address the root causes that force people out of their home countries — such as poverty, violence, inequality and climate change — and expand regular pathways for migration.
He has also called on the United States to suspend sanctions against Venezuela and lift the blockade against Cuba, saying that such measures would reduce migration flows from those countries.
Saved 45% of original text.