Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Paxton sues San Antonio over “sanctuary cities” law

This is gonna be ugly.

Best mugshot ever

Texas is suing the city of San Antonio for an alleged violation of the state’s new anti-“sanctuary cities” law, in the state’s first enforcement action against a city under the controversial statue.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in Travis County District Court, centers on a December 2017 incident when San Antonio police discovered a trailer carrying 12 individuals from Guatemala who were suspected of being undocumented. The city’s police department charged the driver with smuggling of persons, but released the migrants without involving federal immigration authorities, as the new law requires, according to the state’s lawsuit.

The 2017 “sanctuary cities” law, known as Senate Bill 4, says police departments can’t bar their officers from questioning the immigration status of people they detain or arrest. It also punishes local government department heads and elected officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration “detainers” — requests by agents to turn over immigrants subject to possible deportation

San Antonio’s police department policy states that officers will not refer individuals to Immigration and Customs and Enforcement unless they have a federal deportation warrant. That policy, the Texas lawsuit claims, “prohibits and materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.”

The lawsuit seeks hefty civil fees from the city, including a $25,500 penalty for nearly every day that the city’s immigration procedures violated state law. The law went into effect Sept. 1, 2017 — meaning those fees could amount to some $11.6 million.

[…]

Paxton’s office has asked the court to issue an injunction requiring the city to comply with the new law, as well as assess major civil penalties against the city, police department and McManus.

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, slammed the lawsuit, claiming it had “three obvious purposes: to intimidate and frighten immigrants in the state of Texas, to pressure Texas localities to violate constitutional rights, and to attract public attention for Paxton from the nativist fringe.”

I don’t know why Paxton is filing a suit now over something that happened nearly a year ago. I mean, Republicans have been braying about this particular incident all along. Maybe he didn’t want to take action before the election, but you’d think this is the sort of thing the likes of Paxton would see as an asset. Bear in mind, there is also the lawsuit against the “sanctuary cities” law, which is still to be heard in court. There’s a lot of ways this could wind up going.

Related Posts:

10 Comments

  1. Bill Daniels says:

    The illegals the SAPD released were not only illegal aliens, but were customers and enablers of the same Mexican cartels the US spends lots of money to fight against. These people literally are financing the enemy of the United States, and SAPD just lets them go.

    This is why after deliberation, I didn’t vote Libertarian in the AG race, but instead, voted Paxton, because the AG position is important. Texas needs an AG on the side of the United States, not on the side of the Mexican cartels.

    As to why Paxton didn’t file suit before the election, that’s a good point. Why didn’t he? Better late than never, though. Would Nelson have done this? Would Nelson stand up for the USA against the cartels?

  2. Manny Barrera says:

    Bill and you know that they were members of what cartel, how? Is this you creating facts out of the air?

  3. Bill Daniels says:

    Manny,

    Do you believe that they were smuggled into the US out of the goodness of the cartel’s heart? No, they paid thousands per head for the service of being brought in, and that money finances cartel violence here, in Mexico, and probably Central America, too.

  4. voter_worker says:

    Bill, every time you vote for a Libertarian candidate, no matter which office, you’re voting for someone who advocates the free flow of labor and capital (“open borders” to Republicans).
    Reference Section 3.4 of their platform: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

  5. Bill Daniels says:

    Voter,

    I am aware of the Libertarian platform, and like most voters, I do not agree with everything my party believes in. And yes, I understand the illogic of believing in personal liberty and not the free and unfettered movement of people across borders. That stems mainly from understanding that a welfare state cannot keep paying for everyone who wants to come here for our gibs.

  6. Manny Barrera says:

    Bill I would rather deal with facts. I don’t know if it was cartel related neither do you. Thinking it is does not make it so.

    What is normally cartel related are drugs, do you want to put all those users in jail and consider them enablers of cartels? I realize that you may say yes.

  7. voter_worker says:

    @ Bill: I’m weary of the irrational contradictions inherent in this issue and the inability/unwillingness of those in state capitals and DC to come up with solutions that are within the realm of possibility and acceptable to the majority of US voters. AKA leadership. As for the idea that folks come here for freebies, everyone I’ve known who came here under the circumstances being discussed did so to work their butts off and support their families.

  8. Bill Daniels says:

    Voter:

    63% of LEGAL immigrants are on some kind of welfare. LEGAL immigrants. I don’t think they counted anchor babies in that figure, since the are citizens.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

    This is unsustainable. Want a simple solution? Don’t let people in who can’t pay their own way. Don’t let people in who will have their babies at taxpayer expense and immediately have kids on Medicaid, WIC and food stamps. And deport those here illegally with anchors on all the dole, including free breakfast, lunch, pre-K, and take home food on the weekends.

    Many will take those kids back with them. And for a preview of what will happen if we don’t get a handle on this, look at Europe. Look at the ‘yellow vests’ in France. They have had it with heavy taxation to pay for immigrants who won’t take care of themselves.

    If you are coming here, do you have $ 20K to have a child at Methodist Hospital? No? Maybe you don’t need to come here. We’ve got enough people that can’t pay but have the kids anyway. We’re all good in that economic demographic.

  9. Manny Barrera says:

    Not sure what you wrote above Bill has to do with sanctuary cities, but the source tilts way to the right. It is not worth my time to look up whether what you site it is true or not and how they came to the conclusion.

    But considering the source, I would not bet money that they are being honest at worse and purposely misleading at best.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

  10. Manny Barrera says:

    Decided to spend a little time on the issue that Bill, posted. Bill what you have is misleading.

    The link that follows is from the Cato Institute, another right wing organization.

    They break it down to Native and Immigrants. Well Immigrants can be citizens, they just were not born here like the woman that lives in the White House that got the special permit to become legal.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates