New bill grants states power to sue federal government

Bill Introduced to Empower State⁤ Attorneys General in Immigration Enforcement

Republican Representatives Chip Roy and Dan Bishop have⁢ filed a new bill aimed at ⁤giving state attorneys general more authority to ⁣sue the federal government over its failure to enforce immigration laws established ​by Congress.

The bill, known as the Standing Up ‌to⁣ the Executive Branch for Immigration Enforcement‌ Act or “SUE for Immigration Enforcement Act,” is currently being reviewed by‍ the House Judiciary Committee. ​It was⁣ introduced in‌ response to a Supreme Court ‍ruling last July, which stated that Texas and Louisiana did not have the legal standing to⁣ challenge a policy implemented by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This policy effectively halted‍ most deportations of illegal⁣ foreign nationals.

A⁤ federal judge later ruled that ‌Texas and Louisiana did have standing⁤ because they would incur ⁤costs due to the federal government’s ⁢refusal to enforce immigration law.‌ The ‍judge also deemed the ‍deportation ⁢policy‌ unlawful. However,​ the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the states lacked the legal right to challenge the policy.

The Roy ⁤and Bishop bill seeks to grant state attorneys general the standing to sue the secretary of Homeland Security when the federal government fails to enforce immigration law. It proposes amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow attorneys general⁣ to take ‌legal ‍action when the federal government disregards ​existing law by not detaining and removing‍ illegal⁣ foreign nationals in their states. The bill ​also includes provisions defining harm caused by federal policies, such as financial costs exceeding $100, and directs the courts to expedite the resolution of civil actions.

This bill stands in contrast to a Senate Democrat bill, supported by Senator James Lankford, which aimed to strip ⁣states of ‍their ability to sue. Speaker⁢ of the House Mike Johnson stated that the House would not consider the Lankford-Democratic bill. Federal judges in states like Texas, Florida, and⁣ Louisiana have consistently ruled against Mayorkas’ ​policies in lawsuits over⁢ the past three years.

Representative Roy emphasized the importance‍ of their bill, stating that the Biden administration has disregarded existing laws and pursued an ⁤open-borders agenda, resulting in the ongoing border crisis. He believes it is crucial for Congress to reaffirm the states’ constitutional ability to defend their⁢ borders‍ by granting state attorneys general the ⁢power to challenge federal policies directly.

Representative Bishop criticized President Joe Biden and Secretary ⁢Mayorkas for their pursuit ‌of an open borders policy, accusing them‌ of repeatedly​ violating federal immigration law and causing ‍chaos and destruction. He called on Congress to support the states as they defend national sovereignty.

Several other Republican representatives, including Andy Ogles,​ Tom Tiffany, ⁢Harriet Hageman, and Josh Brecheen, have signed on as cosponsors of the bill.

This bill shares similarities with a ⁣previous bill ‍introduced by‍ Representative Bill‌ Posey,⁣ which​ also ‌aimed to grant⁢ states the authority to enforce ⁣federal immigration law when the ‍federal government fails ⁣to do so. ‍Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody led a coalition of ⁣26 state attorneys general⁢ in calling⁣ on Congress to pass this legislation.

Moody expressed frustration with the judicial system’s inability ‌to address ‌the urgent ⁢crisis created ‍by the Biden administration’s policies. Despite winning court battles against Mayorkas’ policies, they have not been halted, and new⁣ parole programs have been⁢ implemented. The ‍bill was​ filed in response to the significant increase⁤ in apprehensions​ of illegal border crossers under Mayorkas’ leadership.

What⁤ are the main arguments​ for‌ and against the SUE​ for ‌Immigration Enforcement Act?

H‍ aims to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented⁤ immigrants. The⁣ Republican​ bill focuses on enforcement of existing‍ immigration laws rather than creating ⁢new pathways for undocumented individuals.

Proponents of the SUE for Immigration ​Enforcement Act⁣ argue that it​ is necessary to address the federal⁢ government’s failure to enforce immigration⁤ laws. They believe that allowing state attorneys general to sue the secretary of ‌Homeland Security will hold ⁣the‍ federal government accountable‌ and ensure that immigration⁣ laws⁤ enacted by⁤ Congress ‍are faithfully executed. Supporters assert‌ that this​ bill is crucial ‍for protecting the integrity of ⁤the immigration system⁤ and maintaining national security.

Opponents⁢ of‍ the‍ bill​ argue ‍that ​expanding⁣ the authority​ of state attorneys ⁤general​ in immigration ⁢enforcement could lead to inconsistent enforcement practices across states. They maintain that immigration⁢ enforcement should ‌be a federal responsibility and that granting state ‌attorneys general the power ​to sue would create confusion⁤ and hinder cooperation between federal and state agencies. ⁢Critics also⁢ argue that the⁤ bill could unfairly⁤ target and discriminate against immigrant⁤ communities,⁢ potentially leading to racial profiling ‍and civil rights violations.

The introduction of this bill reflects the ongoing debate⁤ surrounding immigration enforcement in the ⁤United ‌States. Immigration policy has long ⁣been a contentious issue, with differing viewpoints⁢ on how to best address the challenges ‌and​ opportunities presented by immigration. While some advocate for stricter enforcement and stronger border security, others⁤ argue⁣ for a more ​compassionate and comprehensive approach that includes a pathway to⁢ citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

As the ‌SUE ​for Immigration Enforcement Act makes its way ⁤through the legislative process, it is likely to spark⁤ further ⁣discussion ⁢and debate on the role of state attorneys general in immigration enforcement. Both sides of‌ the debate will continue to‌ present their arguments, and lawmakers will‌ ultimately determine the fate of ⁤the bill. Whether⁣ it becomes⁤ law or⁤ not, ⁤this legislation highlights the importance of finding ⁤a⁣ balanced and effective approach to immigration enforcement that considers both national security and the rights of individuals.