Good old Moonbeam at it again.......

[Tennesseer]

Knocks out the whole west coast for some to visit.

[tallguy]

Good.  If they visit they might move here, and we've got enough people already.  Land values are already high, traffic is terrible, and just on my drive to work there are always a dozen entire blocks where older buildings have been razed to put up new apartments or condos.  Finish a few, raze a few more.  Entire areas have been almost completely redone.  It's crazy.  

[Deleted]

Don't worry... when California secedes, all the military bases and personnel will close/leave. As will all the federal agencies and those personnel.

And all of their families (for both) of course.

Plus all the Californians that don't want to NOT be Americans who will leave...

Removing all those people and all those assets and money from California should free up some space (as well as desire) for tourists (or at least their money!).




ETA: for the record, this is all opinion and sarcasm. No facts were involved or harmed in any way, shape, or form.

[Value Buy]

I saw the Mayor of New Orleans on cable today defending his city as a Sanctuary city, and said the President was wrong for withholding funds from the city because it hurts the citizens......and went on to say, their is not an official definition of a Sanctuary city.
The interviewer asked him, if there is no official definition for it, why did his city declare they were one. He could not give a real answer to that question. He went on to say he and other Mayors were in meetings with Federal law enforcement to work out a compromise, but said it was going to be difficult to get it done.

Sorry, no link......

So, I guess the question is, is their a true definition of a Sanctuary city, and what is it?
If you have one, please call the Mayor in New Orleans and let him know.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2017 19:54:10 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Mar 29, 2017 19:47:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Looks like Oregon is out too.

City Council to declare Portland a 'sanctuary city'

No shock there.

You're not shocked that a city is opting to arbitrarily disregard federal law?

Wow. You're cynical.

[zibazinski]

Not that city. It's like pretending NYC speaks for all of NY.

[tallguy]

I'm not sure it's arbitrary.  The statement from the Washington State Attorney General:

“Local governments do not enforce federal law,” Holmes said. “We are prohibited from doing so and moreover, even if we did, given this administration that would like to commandeer our resources, we would face civil liability, ironically, under federal law.”

I haven't at all looked into that claim, but the AG does seem to be a man of both knowledge and integrity and has already beaten the Trump administration in court twice on the travel ban.  The Seattle and San Francisco lawsuits against the current executive order are both based on the Tenth Amendment according to what I have read.  The claim (I think) is based on the idea that the federal government cannot compel the states or cities to enforce federal law themselves.  Additionally, both the mayor and the AG insist that they are in compliance with the law, at least partly in that they cannot turn over to the federal government information that they do not collect. 

[Virgil Showlion]

OK. So... what exactly does it mean to be a "sanctuary city" then?

If all cities are prohibited from enforcing federal law, what makes "sanctuary cities" special?

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2017 4:23:14 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I'm not sure it's arbitrary.  The statement from the Washington State Attorney General:

“Local governments do not enforce federal law,” Holmes said. “We are prohibited from doing so and moreover, even if we did, given this administration that would like to commandeer our resources, we would face civil liability, ironically, under federal law.”

I haven't at all looked into that claim, but the AG does seem to be a man of both knowledge and integrity and has already beaten the Trump administration in court twice on the travel ban.  The Seattle and San Francisco lawsuits against the current executive order are both based on the Tenth Amendment according to what I have read.  The claim (I think) is based on the idea that the federal government cannot compel the states or cities to enforce federal law themselves.  Additionally, both the mayor and the AG insist that they are in compliance with the law, at least partly in that they cannot turn over to the federal government information that they do not collect. 

The Washington State AG should probably read this then: www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1918-arrest-illegal-aliens-state-and-local-officers

It's an interesting read. Here are the first 3 paragraphs:

1918. Arrest Of Illegal Aliens By State And Local Officers



Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).



Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.



Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1252c which provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

(bolding mine)

The third paragraph is a responsibility IN ADDITION TO the others.

[Opti]

Mar 29, 2017 18:25:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2017 10:31:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes you do.  you said in your post above that you have noted that i have said Bush is not an idiot many times.

wtf are you talking about, Virgil?  do you just like to argue?  why are you contradicting yourself?

PS- we have already established that you think at least two Yale grads are stupid, and i don't.  there is nothing more to discuss, imo.  i don't call ANYONE stupid that is capable of intelligent speech.  that they are capable of BEING stupid on occasion is a given.  even we are, as this discussion proves.  but i am going to exercise my intelligence and opt out.

You're going to ask me three questions but then... opt out of replying?

Hey, I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. I love it when the guy I'm debating just sits there and takes it.

I interpreted your post to mean "Virgil knows Brown and Bush aren't stupid". You apparently intended it to mean "Virgil knows DJ doesn't think Brown or Bush are stupid". That's what you get for leaving participles a-dangling.

Also, liberals are responsible for all the world's problems, Pres. Trump is a genius, and California is a leech.

Its going to be fun when you get twenty more years on you and perhaps you look back on things including this board. Your opponent left the field because you already lost. Nevertheless, I should bookmark this post. I think using this post of your saying "Pres. Trump is a genius" could be a gift that keeps on giving.

[Value Buy]

Mar 30, 2017 3:52:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2017 19:54:10 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

No shock there.

You're not shocked that a city is opting to arbitrarily disregard federal law?

Wow. You're cynical.

There was a "heatmap" posted somewhere showing what states had how many sanctuary areas in it. Oregon was almost covered with them
They made California look like a red state in politics in comparison......

[zibazinski]

Mar 28, 2017 14:44:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 28, 2017 11:44:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

1) So is Pres. Bush.

Methinks your conclusion doesn't quite follow your premise.

Bush has a 135 IQ.  he is no dummy, either.

did that help?

IQ is but one measure of intelligence. I know some high IQ's even in my own family, that don't seem to have the common sense of a goose.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2017 6:55:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Its going to be fun when you get twenty more years on you and perhaps you look back on things including this board. Your opponent left the field because you already lost. Nevertheless, I should bookmark this post. I think using this post of your saying "Pres. Trump is a genius" could be a gift that keeps on giving.

If an opponent is still asking questions, demanding explanations, pointing out contradictions, (s)he hasn't "left the field", I assure you.

As for my comments about Pres. Trump's genius, I shan't deny I won't one day fail to disavow them.

Mar 30, 2017 7:20:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Mar 28, 2017 14:44:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Bush has a 135 IQ.  he is no dummy, either.

did that help?

IQ is but one measure of intelligence. I know some high IQ's even in my own family, that don't seem to have the common sense of a goose.

As best I can determine, Pres. Bush was either never IQ tested or the results of any such test were never made public. Meaning nobody has a clue what his IQ is.

There have been a few infamous whitepapers estimating presidential IQs based on historiometric voodoo. They scored Pres. Bush anywhere from 91 to 125.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 30, 2017 4:30:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

OK. So... what exactly does it mean to be a "sanctuary city" then?

If all cities are prohibited from enforcing federal law, what makes "sanctuary cities" special?

you seem to be good at looking stuff up.  why don't you do so for this?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2017 11:35:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 30, 2017 4:30:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

OK. So... what exactly does it mean to be a "sanctuary city" then?

If all cities are prohibited from enforcing federal law, what makes "sanctuary cities" special?

you seem to be good at looking stuff up.  why don't you do so for this?

I did, and the answer was consistently that sanctuary cities differ by not actively enforcing federal immigration laws. Basically, renouncing the responsibilities in the Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 excerpt that @richardintn helpfully provided.

However, according to the Washington AG, not only are state and local government not required to actively enforce federal laws, they're prohibited from doing so.

This presents as counterfactual to the regulations Richard cited, and it runs contrary to what I'd determined to be the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city. Hence if you or anyone can shed some further light on the subject, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 30, 2017 18:05:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 30, 2017 11:35:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you seem to be good at looking stuff up.  why don't you do so for this?

I did, and the answer was consistently that sanctuary cities differ by not actively enforcing federal immigration laws. Basically, renouncing the responsibilities in the Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 excerpt that @richardintn helpfully provided.

However, according to the Washington AG, not only are state and local government not required to actively enforce federal laws, they're prohibited from doing so.

This presents as counterfactual to the regulations Richard cited, and it runs contrary to what I'd determined to be the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city. Hence if you or anyone can shed some further light on the subject, I'd greatly appreciate it.

nope.  last time i did that, you shoved it back down my throat with a healthy dose of told you so.

i am not even going to tell you what my understanding is.  but maybe someone else will.

[Virgil Showlion]

Uh huh.

Well... the question was originally directed at Tall, and I believe he can bear the risk of a "told you so", so tallguy: fire away, sir.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 30, 2017 18:22:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Uh huh.

Well... the question was originally directed at Tall, and I believe he can bear the risk of a "told you so", so tallguy : fire away, sir.

probably not today.  he is working.  but maybe tomorrow. 

edit: can is not the operative word.  will is.

[tallguy]

Mar 30, 2017 18:22:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Uh huh.

Well... the question was originally directed at Tall, and I believe he can bear the risk of a "told you so", so tallguy : fire away, sir.

Well, you will recall (or you can review) that I prefaced the statement with, "I haven't at all looked into that claim" that cities are either prohibited from enforcing federal law or that they may face civil liability if they do so.  Nor am I inclined to research it, at least for the moment.

With regard to what Richard posted, I would again have to research the first two paragraphs to see if that is current and settled law.  Either way, it appears to suggest that they may be authorized, but it does not read as though they are in any way compelled.  The third paragraph seems irrelevant.  It clearly states within it "to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law" and also "and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction."  The local officers thus appear to be ruled by local law or guidance (which is presumably not to prioritize resources in the pursuit of federal crimes at the expense of local ones) rather than be at the beck and call of federal officials.  It also appears that DOJ wants to target even those who clearly do not qualify under clause 2 in not having been previously convicted of a felony nor having returned after having been deported.  The continuation of clause 2 (but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States) is possibly where the mayor and AG are claiming to be in compliance with the law, since they cannot turn over information to INS that they do not collect.  That's just my first reading and my initial reaction.    


Is that the part you wanted answered, or were you referring back to #67?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2017 19:27:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Mar 30, 2017 18:22:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Uh huh.

Well... the question was originally directed at Tall, and I believe he can bear the risk of a "told you so", so tallguy : fire away, sir.

Well, you will recall (or you can review) that I prefaced the statement with, "I haven't at all looked into that claim" that cities are either prohibited from enforcing federal law or that they may face civil liability if they do so.  Nor am I inclined to research it, at least for the moment.

With regard to what Richard posted, I would again have to research the first two paragraphs to see if that is current and settled law.  Either way, it appears to suggest that they may be authorized, but it does not read as though they are in any way compelled.  The third paragraph seems irrelevant.  It clearly states within it "to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law" and also "and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction."  The local officers thus appear to be ruled by local law or guidance (which is presumably not to prioritize resources in the pursuit of federal crimes at the expense of local ones) rather than be at the beck and call of federal officials.  It also appears that DOJ wants to target even those who clearly do not qualify under clause 2 in not having been previously convicted of a felony nor having returned after having been deported.  The continuation of clause 2 (but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States) is possibly where the mayor and AG are claiming to be in compliance with the law, since they cannot turn over information to INS that they do not collect.  That's just my first reading and my initial reaction.    


Is that the part you wanted answered, or were you referring back to #67?

This is what I wanted answered.

As for your assessment:

1. Agreed that pp. 1 & 2 appear to authorize rather than compel state/local involvement. However, even this much seems to contradict the AG's statement.
   
   
2. The third paragraph looks to be granting authorization to state/local governments in addition to that already granted by pp. 1 & 2. It appears to be an extension granted so that locals have the authority to arrest and detain an illegal immigrant (as opposed to asking the feds to do it) so long as they can prove the individual is a deportee. This obviously suggests that they aren't authorized to arrest and detain illegal immigrants generally.
   
   
3. Where you say "The local officers thus appear to be ruled by local law or guidance (which is presumably not to prioritize resources in the pursuit of federal crimes at the expense of local ones) rather than be at the beck and call of federal officials.", while I generally agree, this doesn't really speak as to whether the "local law or guidance" can be forced into compliance with federal law. Forgive me, but I can't think of any legal controversy in recent memory where the almighty federal government lost such a battle.
   

In short, while these particular laws don't appear to compel any action on the part of state/local authorities, they at least appear to belie the argument that locals can't enforce immigration law--up to and including detaining people under some circumstances.

As for turning over data they don't collect, I thought the whole issue here was the federal government compelling them to collect that data.

[tallguy]

Well, there is this.  (I did a quick search for "declaring laws unconstitutional under the tenth amendment" since both Seattle and San Francisco are basing their suits on it.)

Most Americans believe that the federal government stands absolutely supreme.

Nobody can question its dictates.

Nobody can refuse its edicts.

Nobody can resist its commands.

This is simply not true.

Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution do stand as the supreme law of the land. But that doesn’t in any way imply the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.

First off, as James Madison asserted in Federalist 45, the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” So federal power actually extends into only a few spheres. Most power and authority was left to the states and the people.

Second, even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.

It then details those cases.  

Taken together, these four cases firmly establish a legal doctrine holding that the federal government has no authority to force states to cooperate in implementing or enforcing its acts. Even lawyers cannot dispute the legitimacy of nullification through noncooperation.

Again, I am devoting very little time or effort to this, and this site and article may be a one-man show, but....
 

[tallguy]

Trump and Sessions have basically asserted that the federal government can threaten or in other ways compel the states or cities to cooperate.  I doubt the courts would readily agree, but we will soon see.  And no, I am not inclined to bet on the Trump administration in ANY court case.    

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2017 20:58:17 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, there is this.  (I did a quick search for "declaring laws unconstitutional under the tenth amendment" since both Seattle and San Francisco are basing their suits on it.)

Most Americans believe that the federal government stands absolutely supreme.

Nobody can question its dictates.

Nobody can refuse its edicts.

Nobody can resist its commands.

This is simply not true.

Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution do stand as the supreme law of the land. But that doesn’t in any way imply the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.

First off, as James Madison asserted in Federalist 45, the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” So federal power actually extends into only a few spheres. Most power and authority was left to the states and the people.

Second, even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.

It then details those cases.  

Taken together, these four cases firmly establish a legal doctrine holding that the federal government has no authority to force states to cooperate in implementing or enforcing its acts. Even lawyers cannot dispute the legitimacy of nullification through noncooperation.

Again, I am devoting very little time or effort to this, but....
 

Pursuant to:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution

As found in the Constitution, the federal government has that right per the 10th amendment... which as most know says: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

Control of naturalization, and by extension, immigration... as well as commerce (which is affected by illegals)... is duly authorized to the Federal government.

[tallguy]

And the federal government can enforce it.  Nobody disputes that.  They just cannot compel the states to enforce it.  That's the issue.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2017 21:44:10 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And the federal government can enforce it.  Nobody disputes that.  They just cannot compel the states to enforce it.  That's the issue.

The power to compel the states is included.

It would be like California having a Treaty with a foreign power... not allowed because the Federal Government has control over foreign Treaties. The Fed says what the states can or cannot or must or mustn't do... in areas under it's control.





*for the record, this is my opinion

[tallguy]

Mar 30, 2017 22:04:05 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Mar 30, 2017 21:44:10 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And the federal government can enforce it.  Nobody disputes that.  They just cannot compel the states to enforce it.  That's the issue.

The power to compel the states is included.

It would be like California having a Treaty with a foreign power... not allowed because the Federal Government has control over foreign Treaties. The Fed says what the states can or cannot or must or mustn't do... in areas under it's control.





*for the record, this is my opinion

I would love to see the legal justification for that opinion.  The federal government can enforce federal law through the use of federal agents.  That is true.  That is not at all what is in dispute here.  The federal government does not control local law enforcement agencies.    

[Deleted]

it's my understanding that State (and lower) law enforcement agencies are also supposed to uphold federal laws, where applicable.

It's pretty long but this is a good read on this particular subject (it's a .pdf file from 2012, long before Trump was an issue): Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law

[Deleted]

 Oh and just for Giggles... here's the Oath that Law Enforcement takes in California (SOURCE):

" I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

I can't see anywhere in there where it includes "except if it might inconvenience illegal aliens"

What it does, however, include is: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"

And upon further checking, it appears as if the Governor swears to do the same, also without exception (SOURCE):

I (Governor) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

PLUS the Governor swears "I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States"

Now... I may be a bit confused... but... telling the President (no matter WHO he or she may be) to basically "stick it", when they are doing something fully within their powers... kind of goes against that... doesn't it?

[zibazinski]

States rights do not trump federal laws. We'd still have slavery and segregation if that were true.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2017 20:58:17 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, there is this.  (I did a quick search for "declaring laws unconstitutional under the tenth amendment" since both Seattle and San Francisco are basing their suits on it.)

Most Americans believe that the federal government stands absolutely supreme.

Nobody can question its dictates.

Nobody can refuse its edicts.

Nobody can resist its commands.

This is simply not true.

Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution do stand as the supreme law of the land. But that doesn’t in any way imply the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.

First off, as James Madison asserted in Federalist 45, the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” So federal power actually extends into only a few spheres. Most power and authority was left to the states and the people.

Second, even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.

It then details those cases.  

Taken together, these four cases firmly establish a legal doctrine holding that the federal government has no authority to force states to cooperate in implementing or enforcing its acts. Even lawyers cannot dispute the legitimacy of nullification through noncooperation.

Again, I am devoting very little time or effort to this, and this site and article may be a one-man show, but....
 

I have no doubt the intent was to limit federal powers to being "few and defined" ...and self-implemented, even in the minds of federalists like Madison.

What's happened since then?

All states must provide: education with federally mandated curriculum, healthcare, healthcare insurance, minimum wage, recognition of same-sex "marriage" licenses, services compliant with AA and other quotas, federally-regulated (but generally not funded) infrastructure, full compliance with federal regulations of every conceivable act, industry, product, vice, etc. (typically with minimal federal funding and involvement).

I mean... is there a solitary aspect of human life where the US federal government hasn't "force[d] states to cooperate in implementing or enforcing its acts"? I think there might be a few optional regulations about the elasticity of underpants and length of cucumbers in that category. Maybe. For now.

Is the federal government's supremacy in any of the above mentioned in the US Constitution anywhere? No. It would seem that when American judges read "few and defined", their minds parse it as "innumerable and limited only by your imagination".

After 250 years of abuse, suddenly this is going to be the issue where progressives in particular put their foot down and say "Whoa. If you want a law enforced, do it yourself."?

Oh. Thanks a lot, guys. You're only 250 bloody years late to the party.

But who knows. The case'll probably wind up before a judge who doesn't give a snow leopard's fuzzy arse that every precedent in existence sides with the federal government. You'll get a ruling based on puppies and rainbows (a la majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges) rather than actual legal reasoning, and cement the one right the federal government couldn't get its talons on: to effectively enforce immigration laws.