In a series of policies that appear to have no buy-in or support from the federal government, Texas is charting its own course when it comes to immigration enforcement programs.
How would you assess sanctuary cities and sanctuary states? I agree that these state-based approaches are a mess, but generally one side criticizes state-based enforcement while the other side decries sanctuary cities. My efforts to try to harmonize the extremes is probably hopeless but I will keep trying.
Overall I do think a return to vigorous federalism might be a way for us to remain a union. The divide on immigration and so many other issues seems so intense and unreconcilable.
I don't disagree that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states contribute to the problem of geographic unevenness. The history of those policies, however, was largely *reactions* to the process of local, devolutionary enforcement practices rather than proactive in the sense that they were trying to carve out exceptions to federal enforcement. Maybe others would disagree with me about that, but that's based on my research. I don't consider myself on either side here, but I do think that at the moment, Abbott is, let's say, the most "aggressive" on this front. Some people may like it, some people may not. But I think it's important to at least identify as a phenomenon, if that makes sense.
How would you assess sanctuary cities and sanctuary states? I agree that these state-based approaches are a mess, but generally one side criticizes state-based enforcement while the other side decries sanctuary cities. My efforts to try to harmonize the extremes is probably hopeless but I will keep trying.
Overall I do think a return to vigorous federalism might be a way for us to remain a union. The divide on immigration and so many other issues seems so intense and unreconcilable.
I don't disagree that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states contribute to the problem of geographic unevenness. The history of those policies, however, was largely *reactions* to the process of local, devolutionary enforcement practices rather than proactive in the sense that they were trying to carve out exceptions to federal enforcement. Maybe others would disagree with me about that, but that's based on my research. I don't consider myself on either side here, but I do think that at the moment, Abbott is, let's say, the most "aggressive" on this front. Some people may like it, some people may not. But I think it's important to at least identify as a phenomenon, if that makes sense.