[vaidhy]

Sp, 2 wrongs make a right? From what I remember, immigration is federal jurisdiction and not state. States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws and the supreme court judgement agrees with that viewpoint.

And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people.

Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.

[NoRelToEmber]

> States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws

Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3].

Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory.

States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-...

[3] https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull...

[mrguyorama]

>states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age

100% yes. This was the explicit opinion of several founders, to the point of publicly stating that any provision for any sort of "exit" of the union makes it entirely pointless. The constitution forever bound us, purposely, intentionally, and with an explicit supremacy clause that makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.

We are NOT a federation, were never meant to be, and there is no honest reading of the constitution within context that comes up with such a claim.

This was done because the Articles of Confederation was such an abysmal failure that left the country weak, bickering, and basically a bunch of small kingdoms of governors refusing to interact in ways that benefited the country as a whole. We tried the "weak, small, limited federal government that lets the states do mostly their own thing" and the result was very nearly the end of the country in its infancy. The constitution was entirely "Sign this and we be strong together, or we are re-conquered in twenty years when europe gets it's shit together"

[NoRelToEmber]

> makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.

And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.

[Moomoomoo309]

The system is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. The undemocratic elements you're referring to are just that - the republic. If the federal government were to capitulate to the states, there would be no republic. They tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the US's first government. You need a strong federal government with its own set of rules. Home rule must be limited to some extent to allow for people to work together. I think in this case for Texas, they've squeezed home rule too hard, but that is always going to be a balancing act.

Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?