State legislatures across the country are accelerating efforts to shape immigration enforcement policy after the deadly shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal agent, raising tensions between local leaders and the Trump administration.
From California to New York and Illinois to New Jersey, they’re pushing a range of bills aimed at limiting enforcement and protecting people targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while turning up the rhetoric with comparisons to the Gestapo.
Now that’s some policy I can get behind.
I’m confused on the second one. Can we currently not sue these assholes for invading our houses without a warrant?
I am not a lawyer.
I think the key word here is “civil”. Right now they’re violating Federal law, which would involve higher courts, FBI, etc. A civil case would put all this awfulness in the hands of the State where the (Federal) law was broken.
This sounds great. If we can pass legislation like this in enough states, as well as legislation that requires ICE to remain unmasked and constantly wear ID (and more legislation requiring local police to intervene in cases where ICE does not obey the aforementioned, obstructing the ICE agents from continuing their work until complete compliance), we might be able to set up a “screw your neighbor” kind of authority.
Can a state support people in creating lawsuits?
They’re largely protected by jurisdiction and qualified immunity. This removes the jurisdiction hurdle presumably. If NY law says that it’s their jurisdiction then the ruling will be unable to avoid through federal actions. For civil liability this means they will have to defend their qualified immunity under NY standards. That’s how I read it anyways.