Selective use of “anti-commandeering” doctrine?

“…according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Mr. Abbott, a Republican, last month declared the state’s border situation a disaster, a classification typically used for events such as hurricanes. He said state troopers in Texas would begin arresting immigrants for trespassing, a new approach in responding to increased border traffic. Immigration enforcement is normally left to the federal government.” Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 23, 2021

————–

We recently posted a piece that noted that illegal immigration proponents may use the “doctrine “ of “Anti-Commandering” to allow states and cities to establish “sanctuaries” to protect illegal immigrants from federal law.

In an article on Friday, the Wall Street Journal noted that “immigration is normally left to the federal government…”. REALLY? What about that ”Anti-Commandeering” Doctrine?

———–

If, like me, you’ve wondered how states and cities can choose to be “sanctuaries” which seem to flout federal immigration laws, here’s your answer:

“Legal Insurrection” Suggests Best Legal Doctrine for States and Cities to Create “Sanctuaries”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/crucial-components-in-the-creation-of-successful-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-states/

“Anti-Commandeering” 

Anti-Commandeering is a well-settled and well-supported legal principle—the federal government cannot force state officials to prosecute and enforce federal law.

State officials cannot be compelled—or “commandeered”—to complete federal tasks. Sure, states can voluntarily cooperate with federal law enforcement, which they often do in exchange for federal handouts, but states cannot be forced to do so. (In effect,”sanctuary” communities can declare that there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant”.)


dlh

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Selective use of “anti-commandeering” doctrine?

  1. Designated2 says:

    Red states, counties and municipalities should (and some are) employ the doctrine to protect life, to preserve the right to self-defence and more. Competing doctrine of “preemption” of course can come into play.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *