Sotomayor: Do You Want to 'Unnaturalize People?'
... Sauer replied, “No, we believe the court should do what it did in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, where there was a ruling that would have deprived people who are already citizens of citizenship, and the court said this applies prospectively only. We think that’s the appropriate course here. ..."
Drudge version:
Rubio's parents were subject to the jurisdiction of Cuba, and therefore so was he, making none of them citizens.
Same was true of Native Americans, none of whom were made citizens by the 14th Amendment. They were subject to The Nations, which the federal government recognized by treaties as nations within the American nation. Native Americans received citizenship by law passed in 1924.
14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ...
It is high time that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" be treated seriously and not superfluously.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Trump says Justices Barrett, Gorsuch ‘sicken me’ after Supreme Court tariff ruling
President Donald Trump on Wednesday criticized two of his Supreme Court appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — for voting with other justices in the bombshell 6-3 decision that ruled his signature reciprocal tariffs were illegal, saying they sickened him and are “bad for our country.”
“Two of the people that voted for that, I appointed,” Trump said at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner at Union Station in Washington, D.C., without naming the two justices. ...
Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs, rebuking president’s signature policy
... Many of those tariffs were invoked using a novel reading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. They include Trump’s near-global “reciprocal” tariffs, and separate duties related to the alleged trafficking of deadly drugs into the U.S.
The IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs, as the Supreme Court noted Friday. Instead, it allows the president to “regulate … importation” of foreign property transactions after declaring a national emergency in order to deal with certain “unusual and extraordinary” threats.
The Trump administration has argued that language empowers the president to impose tariffs on foreign goods.
Critics charged that the law does not permit the president to unilaterally impose levies of any size on any country at any time. A federal trade court and a federal appeals court both found Trump’s IEEPA tariffs illegal before the Supreme Court took up the case. ...
The Supreme Court slapped down Arizona in 2012 for trying to enforce its border with Mexico when Obama wouldn't do it.
Will they slap this down?
Agreements that allow local police to work with ICE skyrocket
Agreements between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local law enforcement that allow officers to make federal immigration arrests have increased by 950% in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, according to a new analysis of ICE data.
As of Jan. 26, there were 1,168 agencies with officers trained to help ICE, up from 135 during the Biden administration and 150 at the end of Trump’s first term, according to the analysis by FWD.US, a nonpartisan policy organization.
The Trump administration has called on local law enforcement to support its growing deportation operations nationwide, reviving a controversial “task force” model that allows local police officers to be deputized by ICE to stop people and make arrests based on suspicion that someone is in the country illegally. ...
ICE’s advertising for the program promised to give law enforcement agencies $7,500 for equipment per trained officer; $100,000 for new vehicles and overtime pay of up to 25% of an officer’s salary.
The analysis shows 39 states have policing agencies now participating, but didn’t give the total number of officers now working with ICE.
The states with the most participating agencies were Florida, with 342 agreements, Texas, with 296 agreements, Tennessee, with 63 agreements, Pennsylvania, with 58 agreements and Alabama with 52 agreements, according to the analysis by FWD.US, which advocates for immigration and criminal justice reforms.
State and local police agencies and sheriffs departments potentially stand to gain between $1.4 billion and $2 billion this year if they agree to participate because of the large infusion of cash from Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the organization predicted.
“This amount would dwarf all other federal funding for local law enforcement,” the FWD.US report found. ...
Local authorities don't have to cooperate on immigration, or on anything else.
Based on Supreme Court precedents like Printz v. United States (1997), courts have held that the federal government cannot command state or local officials to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs, including immigration enforcement.
Real Clear Politics should know better than to repost this bullshit.