Trump and Sessions should be in prison according to their bible

It is almost certain, at least to this author, that there are no greater hypocrites and liars in America than Republicans claiming Christianity as the one overriding force informing their actions and their lives. It was no surprise to learn upon returning from a wilderness hiatus that a man who regularly touts his Christian bona fides had no qualms gleefully announcing the Trump administration’s intent to continue ripping children from their families according to his decision to use the Christian bible to justify violating the number one rule of the “family values” cult – breaking families apart.

First, it was a prime example of Republican hypocrisy for an administration representing the evangelical Party of “family values” to take pleasure in separating families as a deterrent in Trump’s campaign to make America whiter. That is the overriding goal of the xenophobes, white supremacists, and nationalists propping up the corrupt dictator in the Oval Office.

It was also telling that part and parcel of J. Beauregard Sessions’ recent claims centering around the idea that mostly Brown women facing abuse have no right to appeal to America for sanctuary, and a little humanity. It reveals that Sessions is as true a representation of a patriarchal Christian male as most people will ever see in public during their lifetime. An abused woman seeking asylum to avoid being tortured by a man is obviously an atrocity to Sessions; it is a mindset likely based on the biblical commandment that women must subject themselves to whatever “a man” forces on them.

Now, as no small number of pundits, including Christians,  have noted; there is nothing whatsoever in the Christian bible supporting “ripping families” apart, or throwing thousands of young children, including infants, into concentration camps. There are Old Testament passages where the Israelites’ god ordered his people to rip women’s stomachs open and kill the fetuses, but there is nothing authorizing tearing what are surely Christian families apart because they are not white and speak a language other than English.

However, as Beauregard Sessions did rightly claim, his Christian bible does indeed command the religion’s adherents to obey the government authorities and submit to the law of the land; but it is noteworthy that the law of the land does not advocate or support the malice being displayed by Trump’s administration towards immigrants. Furthermore, the Constitution does not support using the Christian Bible to justify any law or any government action, much less the barbarism of separating children from their parents. Parents, by the way, who are only being charged with a misdemeanor for “improper entry” and may face up to six months in jail – apparently even if they are adhering to the law in seeking asylum as political or abused refugees.

Setting aside Beauregard Session’s savagery and inherent Republican brutality for a minute, it was bad enough that he cited his Christian bible as justification for abusing children, but his use of that particular scripture about obeying the law of the land was beyond hypocritical.

It is true that the bible passage Sessions cited does command Christians to obey the government authorities and adhere faithfully to the laws of the land, but if Sessions was not a raging evangelical hypocrite he would have already turned himself in to federal law enforcement authorities for immediate prosecution. He did, in fact, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, commit perjury under a “so help me god” oath before the United States Senate – at least twice.

Sessions made a big deal about everyone having to abide by the law in responding to other Christians’ condemning the Trump callousness against families and children. Sessions said:

“Many of the criticisms raised in recent days are not fair or logical and some are contrary to law. Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the law of the government because god has ordained them for the purpose of order.”

Over the weekend, that Trump administration devotion to “law and order” was parroted, sans scriptural justification, by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen during an appearance in New Orleans. Ms. Nielsen told the National Sheriffs’ Association:

Illegal actions have and must have consequences. No more free passes, no more get out of jail free cards.”

Of course there is no god ordaining any government leaders of any nation, but the idea that Sessions insists that “persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution” is patently hypocritical.

Sessions, and at least four other Trump cabinet nominees violated 18 U.S. Code § 1621 during their Senate confirmation hearings by committing perjury under a “so help me god” oath. And it is noteworthy that four of those nominees are self-confessed devout Christians who, like their criminal leader Trump, violate Number Nine of the BIG Ten Commandments regularly and with impunity.

If Sessions assertion about prosecuting federal law violations was sincere, Trump would be facing prosecution for violating the Emoluments Clause, the Constitution’s “take care” clause, the U.S. Code’s anti-nepotism law and for violating his own “so help me god” oath to support and defend the Constitution during his poorly-attended inauguration. It is highly likely that Trump has violated myriad other laws that, according to evangelical malcontents Sessions and Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, make him “subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of the nation’s laws.”

Of course the lying Attorney General Sessions is never going to consider subjecting the lyin’ kings Trump and ‘preacher’ Pence, or any of Trump’s filthy lying Cabinet membersto prosecution to the fullest extent of the nation’s laws;” they are white Republicans and claim Christianity as their reason for living.

It was curious there was such an outrage over Sessions using his Christian bible as justification for tearing children from their mothers arms, and in one reported case from the infant’s mother’s breast. Religious right acolytes, and many Republicans, have used their Christian bible to justify slavery, racism, rape, starving the poor, pedophilia, persecuting the LGBTQ community, and subjecting women to the will of other religious Republicans.

No-one in their right mind should be surprised Sessions used his bible to justify tearing non-white immigrant families apart any more than they should be offended at the typically inherent evangelical Republican cruelty. Sadly, it is exactly the kind of cruelty documented in the Christian bible and at the rate Republicans are crusading to make the Christian bible the law of the land, Americans should be terrified if they weren’t so laser focused on Trump’s latest “tweets” or how often he goes golfing.

Image: Evan Vucci/Associated Press

Trump’s Shutdown Threat Reveals the Depth of His Contempt for the People

It is nearly impossible to believe that there are very many Americans remaining who fail to see the abject disaster of allowing a fake wrestling and reality show personality inside the White House. Of course Trump has supporters, but one seriously wants to believe the data that white supremacists {racists} and evangelical extremists (religious right) still represent a minority of the population; it is difficult to quantify the “stupid” contingent that do not fall into either of those categories, but it has to be under 50 percent of the population. After Trump’s outrageous statement last weekend, it is nearly impossible to believe anyone fails to see Trump as dangerously disastrous.

There was an interesting op-Ed in the Washington Post asking, “Does Trump operate out of any conception of what’s in the public interest?”

It is an easy to answer query, and it is a question that applies equally to the Republican Party; the GOP exists solely to advance the interests of the rich and the religious with no regard for “the public interest.”

Trump’s statement that he is looking ahead to September to “close down America” if Congress doesn’t bend to his will certainly insinuates that no, Trump has no “interest” in what is good for America or the people. It is not, as the WaPo piece suggests, that Trump is “incapable” of considering the good of the people or the country; he just has no regard for anyone but himself.

No doubt Trump was serious in threatening to “close down the country” if his Republican underlings in Congress fail to provide funding to build a Berlin Wall-type barrier along America’s Southern border. In fact, it is not a stretch to assume that Trump would in fact “close down America” if he was able, but it is not within his purview according to the document he dismisses as “archaic” and not applicable to him or his administration.

Obviously, someone in the White House informed Trump that regardless of what the voices in his head tell him, America is not one of his bankrupt hotels, at least not yet; he cannot just unilaterally close down the government if his perceived employees in Congress fail to do his bidding. Trump almost certainly meant he would impose a “government shutdown” as demanded by his minders at Fox News to facilitate punishing the American people if he doesn’t get his vanity project and monument to America’s xenophobia and isolationism.

Since he would require assistance from Congress, Trump could not possibly make an outrageous threat without lying; including using alternative facts sourced directly from his juvenile mind. Seriously, it is difficult to recollect any time in American history that a “president” White House resident threatened to “close down the country” if he doesn’t get his way, but then again Americans never allowed a petulant racist bastard take up occupancy in the White House.

Trump was speaking to a group during a tax reform roundtable in Ohio and as usual he was in the process of attacking Democrats “during a riff about border security” and just offered up a typically Trump idea. He said Americans should begin thinking about “closing up the country” if he doesn’t get his way. He said:

They don’t want the wall, but we’re going to get the wall, even if we have to think about closing up the country for a while. We’re going to get the wall. We have no choice. We have absolutely no choice. And we’re going to get tremendous security in our country.”

To show he was serious Trump repeated the idea of closing down the nation and he naturally lied about what he claims is the existential threat to the nation without a Berlin-type wall. He reiterated just how far he is willing to go and how much misery and damage he can inflict on the American people to get his way and sate the white supremacists, xenophobes, and isolationists who demand a whites-only nation. He said:

And we may have to close up our country to get this straight, because we either have a country or we don’t. And you can’t allow people to pour into our country the way they’re doing. We come up again on Sept. 28 and if we don’t get border security, we’ll have no choice. We’ll close down the country.” (author bold)

Trump naturally lied about immigration to defend shutting down the government, and of course his mendacity entailed fear mongering about a massive increase in Hispanic immigrants threatening America as a nation and the white people as a race. One even wonders if very many Americans are aware of the Berlin Wall Trump envisions for America; particularly since a frighteningly inordinate number of people are unaware of the Holocaust.

The truth is that immigration has been on the decline for well over a decade, and two years ago a new trend was reported; more Mexicans are fleeing America than are entering. In fact, exactly a day prior to Trump’s threat to close the country amid his own dire warning that America’s “Southern border is under siege,” Trump’s administration released  statistics showing that undocumented immigration was in line with historical norms that represent a steady decline of Hispanic immigrants; not an invasion and certainly not a dangerous surge.

Although Trump has made immigrants a target for ages, he began ramping up his nasty rhetoric about an hour after watching a Fox and Friends segment reporting on an annual publicity stunt to bring attention to the refugee crisis in Central America; what Fox News convinced Trump was an invasion force consisting of “a small migrant army marching toward the United States.” There is a fair explanation of what the annual “human rights demonstration” entails here; only Trump and his advisory committee at Fox News could possibly conflate the “demonstration” with an invasion force.

One House Democrat, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), echoed the sentiment of any sane American at the news that Trump threatened to “close down the country” if he doesn’t get his way. Ms. Jayapal said:

“[Trump] is absolutely out of his mind to think that is any kind of a reasonable solution for our economy or compassion or in line with our values. This President [Trump] has done everything he can every time he’s in trouble to turn around and try to turn it against immigrants, and it really deeply saddens me.”

Despite everything Trump says about immigrants, the real threat to Americans is the filthy lying racist living in the White House. The  one who appears ready and willing to burn down the country, or at least “shut it down,” until his employees in Congress hand over taxpayer dollars for Trump’s vanity wall.

It is likely that the same xenophobes who have supported him since his poorly attended inauguration, and his minders at Fox News, cheered his threat to “close America for a while” if he can’t get what he wants; no matter the damage to the nation’s economy and the people.

Despite what the WaPo op-ed proffered, there is not a question of whether Trump has any concern for the public interest, because he has none. The prescient question is how much damage will Republicans allow him to inflict on them if he doesn’t get what he wants.

Trump Lied – He Does Not Want Congress to Replace DACA

When Trump tasked his attorney general, racist Jeff Sessions, to announce to Dreamers that if Congress does not develop a replacement for the DACA program within six months they would be deported, he was treading a fine line. Of course he was sending a message to Trump’s white nativist supporters that he was taking another step to “make America white,” but he also pretended Trump was heeding advice from prominent Republican leaders. It was less than a week ago that several Republicans joined the business sector in appealing to Trump to either leave DACA in place or allow congressional Republicans to come up with a “humanitarian” solution to allow the Dreamers to remain in “their home country.”

However, if one listened to Jeff Sessions, Trump’s intent is clear;  there is no solution that doesn’t include deporting about 800,000 undocumented immigrants who ended up in America through no fault of their own. Trump has to conform to his angry base’s insistence that nothing less than mass deportations will please them.

That point was made crystal clear by a self-confessed “anti-Latino” Republican, Steve King (R-IA). King was livid at the thought of Trump delaying an end to DACA and he “tweeted” an opinion embraced by Trump and his nativist devotees. King tweeted:

Ending DACA now gives chance [to] restore Rule of Law. Delaying so [Republican] Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide.”

First, it is unlikely the Republican leadership will find support to “fix DACA” because the extremist House Freedom Caucus (teabaggers) that Steve King is a member of are vehemently opposed to immigrants, documented or not. They are the alt-right.

Second, and more importantly, Sessions comments confirm that the administration is not concerned about a “humanitarian fix” based on a couple of lies typical of Trump and far-right xenophobes about the danger of Hispanic immigrants.

Sessions lied and said:

The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern (sic) border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences. It also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.”

A pathological liar like his boss Trump, Sessions’ claim that DACA “contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border” is patently false According to the Koch brothers’ Cato Institute. Sessions was parroting a tired and overused assertion touted by far-right xenophobes that immigrants pose a “terrible humanitarian consequences” to white people. However, according to a study published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, International Migration, any surge in unaccompanied minors actually began in 2008: President Obama’s executive action creating DACA was four-and-a-half years later, in June 2012.

There are quite a few reasons for the influx in unaccompanied minors from Latin American nations, but they had nothing to do with Barack Obama’s DACA program; a fact even a memory challenged idiot like Sessions knows to be a natural fact.

In the waning days of the 2008, one of the final pieces of legislation that passed both Houses of Congress without controversy and signed into law by President George W. Bush, was the “Willian Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It was named after a 19th Century British abolitionist and touted by George W. Bush as “very effecting in stopping human trafficking.” And it is noteworthy that not only was the legislation not controversial, White House spokesman Tony Fratto saidThis is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign.

As further proof that DACA had nothing to do with a “surge in unaccompanied minors,” any undocumented children who arrived in America after DACA’s implementation did not qualify for the program. According to President Obama’s executive order:

Only those individuals who have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007 and were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 are eligible to receive DACA status.”

Sessions was also lying when he repeated a favorite nativistfalse narrative” that DACA has “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans” by allowing those same jobs to go to undocumented immigrant children. The line is a favorite of anti-immigration crusaders who claim that besides bringing drugs, diseases, and death to white Americans, immigrant children have been sneaking across the Southern border specifically to participate in the DACA program with the express purpose of  “stealing Americans’ jobs.”

Like nearly everything Republicans, and particularly Trump Republicans claim; there is no real evidence that DACA recipients have taken any jobs from any Americans, much less “hundreds of thousands” of them.

However, there is overwhelming evidence that “killing DACA will do significant damage to America’s economy.” It is why the business sector warned Trump against rescinding DACA; a fact that Sessions knows to be true but he “conveniently omitted” that fact from his announcement.

According to research conducted by the Center for American Progress, when the DACA program is abolished, its former participants will lose their work permits and their jobs prior to being thrown out of the only country they know as home.  That works out to roughly 30,000 people losing their jobs every month that will reduce national GDP by $208 billion to $433 billion over the next decade. And, according to the libertarian belief tank the Cato Institute, the death of DACA will cost employers a little over $2 billion and cost the federal government about $60 billion.   Despite what the lying Trump administration claims, the racist decision to end DACA is not “a job-saver;” it is a job-killer.

The economic damage of killing off DACA is exactly why the business sector opposes putting an end to the program. But Trump’s feint of allowing Congress six months to replace DACA (he has no intention of preserving it) has nothing to do with the economy or humanitarianism; he wants it ended to sate his and his racist, nativist supporters’ lust for a “whiter” America.

It doesn’t matter one iota if Trump gave Congress six hours, six days, six months or six years to “replace DACA;” any effort will be stopped in its tracks by Republican extremists in the House Freedom Caucus and their teabagger cohorts in the Senate. Trump knows DACA, for all intents and purposes, is on its deathbed. If he thought anyone with a brain believed he was acquiescing to the appeals of a few Republicans and the business sector by giving Congress a six month window to fix DACA, he is stupider than his racist supporters.

Trump probably understands at this juncture in his failed presidency that the only support he maintains is from evangelical fanatics and racist nativists that comprise the Nazi “alt-right.” It is true he gave Congress six months to fix DACA before it “officially” expires, but he really ended the program because nothing will please him and his asshole devotees more than deporting 800,000 Hispanic immigrants.

Image: GoldenStateTimes

GOP Leaders Reverse Course on President Obama’s DACA

Regardless of what Republicans said and how much they bemoaned and criticized President Barack Obama’s agenda and policies, they know he was fundamentally right nearly all the time because he governed from a centrist position and always for the benefit of the people; it is why he easily won two consecutive presidential elections. Interestingly, Republican leaders are now supporting an Obama immigration policy they screamed like banshees was an atrocity, and an abuse of his executive power, and they are using Obama’s reasoning to convince their racist hero Trump to preserve the immigration executive order protecting the so-called “Dreamers.”

Americans have been hearing that Trump is on the verge of canceling President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA allows “undocumented” immigrants who were brought to America as children avoid deportation and acquire work permits. A move by Trump to end DACA will not go over well with the public, or the business community, and now it is not going over well with leading Republicans. Most Americans believe that undocumented children who were hauled over the border by their parents through no fault of their own and have no legal or criminal issues in their records should be shown compassion and allowed to stay, work and thrive in America.

In fact, the business sector employing roughly 800,000 people authorized to work through DACA are opposed to Trump ending DACA, and it is most likely that they are putting pressure on “business friendly” Republicans to rein in Trump’s threat to end the program. On Friday, the business sector pressure to save DACA apparently inspired two “prominent Republican” legislators to publicly appeal to Trump to allow Congress to come up with a long-term resolution to DACA instead of canceling it unconditionally.

One of the prominent Republicans was House Speaker Paul Ryan who, after criticizing President Obama for initiating the program, actually used President Obama’s exact reasoning for creating it in the first place. Ryan said regarding Trump’s threat to eliminate DACA and deport at least 800,000 people:

“I don’t think he should do that. This is something Congress has to fix. President Obama did not have the authority to do what he did. Having said all that there are people who are in limbo. These are kids who know no other country, who were brought here by their parents and don’t know another home. So I really do believe there needs to be a legislative solution, that’s one we’re working on, and I think we want to give people piece of mind. I think the president Trump ‘mentioned’ a humane solution to this problem, and I think that’s something we in Congress are working on and need to deliver on.”

Now, if Ryan really believes his own sophistry about DACA being something Congress has to fix, then why did Republicans in Congress throw a fit when President Obama appealed to them to “do something” to fix the problem? And why did they work tirelessly to defeat “the Dream Act” that would have eliminated any need for a Presidential executive order? For dog’s sake, President Obama’s executive order creating DACA was in June 2012 and Republicans have had over five years to “do something to fix” it with a permanent solution; including re-introducing and passing the Dream Act.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) reiterated Ryan’s appeal to Trump, and used President Obama’s reasoning for “providing a workable path forward for the ‘Dreamer’ population.” Hatch said in a statement:

“I’ve urged the president Trump not to rescind DACA, an action that would further complicate a system in serious need of a ‘permanent legislative solution.’ Like the president Trump, I’ve long advocated for tougher enforcement of our existing immigration laws. But we also need a workable, permanent solution for individuals who entered our country unlawfully as children through no fault of their own and who have built their lives here. And that solution must come from Congress. Over the coming months, I’ll be working closely with my colleagues in Congress to pass meaningful immigration reform … that will provide a workable path forward for the Dreamer population, and ensure that employers have access to the high-skilled workers they need to succeed.”

The same question that Paul Ryan must be compelled to answer applies to Orrin Hatch; why did Republicans in Congress vote against the Dream Act on at least three separate occasions over several years? Nothing changed for the undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children “through no fault of their own, are in limbo, know no other country, and don’t know another home.”

It is noteworthy that Hatch was a co-sponsor of the bill’s first iteration in 2001, and that five Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the last version in 2011. But the point is that if it is so important to Republicans now for Trump to allow Congress to pass a version of the Dream Act as a permanent solution to DACA, it is glaringly apparent that the only reason Republicans opposed it when President Obama appealed to their compassionate side was because it was President Obama.

It was also reported that Tennessee’s Republican Attorney General, Herbert H. Slavery III, had signed on to an “ultimatumletter with nine other GOP attorneys general and one Republican governor warning Trump that if he failed to kill DACA by September 5, they would “sue to block it in court.” However, yesterday, Friday, Slatery “publicly withdrew his demand” and urged Trump to not only keep DACA in place, but to work with Congress to protect young undocumented immigrants.

In a letter to Tennessee’s two Republican senators, Slatery wrote, in part:

Many of the DACA recipients, some of whose records I reviewed, have outstanding accomplishments and laudable ambitions, which if achieved, will be of great benefit and service to our country. They have an appreciation for the opportunities afforded them by our country. There is a human element to this …  that is not lost on me and should not be ignored.”

It is nearly impossible to imagine Republicans have had a change of heart, and are serious about “the human element” in seeking a permanent fix for Dreamers; these are Republicans and they are bereft of compassion as a matter of course. It is more likely they were pressed by the business sector to publicly appeal to Trump to let them resolve the issue for the sake of profits, not compassion. They had several stellar opportunities over the course of several years to pass the Dream Act and avoid this DACA controversy altogether, particularly in 2011 when Barack Obama appealed to something they never display for the people, but have in abundance for their business special interests – compassion.

Federal Judge Blocks Texas Ban on Sanctuary Cities – For Now

Historically, a sanctuary is considered a sacred place, such as a shrine that can also serve as a place of safe haven. By extension and historically, the word “sanctuary” has typically been used for any place of safety, such as a church, a monastery, and even a city. Although Republicans regard cities controlled by Democrats as anything other than “sacred places,” or “shrines,” they are generally repulsed at the concept of a “sanctuary city” because they are typically Democratic leaning and offer safe haven to Brown people.

The reason Republicans, and particularly that racist Republican in the White House, despise the idea of the typically Democratically controlled sanctuary cities is because they “limit cooperation with the national government’s effort to enforce harsh immigration laws.”

Sanctuary city leaders are more concerned with reducing the fear of deportation and possible family break-up among undocumented immigrants so they will be more willing to report crimes and cooperate with local police instead of quaking in fear and hiding for their lives.

Trump hates sanctuary cities and has threatened to punish them for not showing him undying fealty by doing doubly duty as federal immigration police to hunt down and round up people they merely suspect are undocumented. It is exactly what convicted felon and now pardoned Joe Arpaio is guilty of doing. He was never convicted of racial profiling, but he is guilty according to several lawsuits or Maricopa County would not have paid out hundreds-of-millions to settle lawsuits against Arpaio.

Trump and his racist Attorney General Jeff Sessions have made serious threats against non-compliant leaders in sanctuary cities for not obeying his anti-Latino dictate. Thus far, Trump has not convinced Republicans in Congress to pass federal legislation banning sanctuary cities, but that did not stop Texas Republicans from taking matters in their own hands.

Texas’ Republican dominated legislature passed a ban on sanctuary cities in May, and since Governor Greg Abbott refuses to stand up for much of anything, especially the rule of law and Latinos in his state, he was proud to sign the bill into law. The law was due to be enacted on September 1, but all that “anti-Latino law” accomplished was incurring a major lawsuit to stop its implementation.

Since the lawsuit is still ongoing, a federal Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban on constitutionality grounds like no small number of recent Republican state laws.  It is noteworthy that the judge’s ruling is only temporary, but for now it prevents the savage law, Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), from going into effect tomorrow, Friday. The judge is allowing the lawsuit against the matter to go forward and reach a conclusion before issuing a final ruling.

Even though the “injunction” is only temporary, it is a well-deserved legal blow to what experts claim is “one of the toughest state-issued immigration laws in the nation.” It is curious that only Republican states are encroaching on the federal government’s purview over immigration policy and enforcement, but Republicans are typically racist and fervently anti-immigration like Trump. Besides giving Texas Republicans a “poke in the eye,” the ruling “puts the brakes on a measure championed by Trump;” a measure S.B. 4’s critics have rightly labeled an “anti-Latino measure.”

The measure, S.B. 4, “prohibits cities and counties from adopting policies that limit immigration enforcement, allows police officers to question the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest, and imposes fines, jail time and removal from elected office for any official who defies the ban.”  S.B. 4 also orders local officials to coordinate and cooperate with federal immigration detainer requests, which forces “foreign-born detainees to be transferred to federal custody after they are released from state or local custody” based on “a suspicion” they are undocumented.

The essence of S.B. 4 can be summed up as thus: do what anti-Latino Trump orders or face being arrested, fined, sent to prison, and removed from elected office. That summation did not sit well with a number of the Texas’ biggest cities, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas. Those cities are controlled by Democrats who joined the lawsuit against Texas seeking to strike down the law. For now, the cities will have to settle for the preliminary injunction and await the conclusion of the lawsuit; a lawsuit that should be struck down unconditionally because S.B. 4 is unconstitutional.

The same U.S. District Court Judge, Orlando Garcia, that issued the injunction, ruled on another “undocumented immigrant” case in June. In that case, Judge Garcia ruled that “Bexar County Sheriff’s Office violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure” when jailers detained a “suspected” undocumented immigrant for more than two months; and that detention was for two months after the man had a misdemeanor charge against him dismissed.

In that particular case, the victim’s lawyers challenged the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office’s “longstanding practice” of granting “immigration detainers.” Immigration detainers are routine requests from I.C.E. officials for local jails to hold detainees just “suspected of federal immigration violations;” even if their local charges have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Immigration lawyers nationwide argue that such requests are often “flawed, haphazard and fall well below the legal standard of a warrant or judge’s order.” Remember, like now-pardoned Joe Arpaio’s confessed practice, the “longstanding practice” by local Texas police targets people only “suspected of federal immigration violations.

There is no telling how this particular lawsuit will conclude, but with a racist anti-immigration crusader  in the White House, and plenty of anti-immigrant Republican legislatures anxious to show their anti-Latino bona fides, it is highly likely there are more sanctuary city bans on the horizon. However for now, at least sanctuary cities in Texas can breathe a little easier that their leaders will not face fines, prison time, or be removed from office for showing something no Republican vaguely comprehends – compassion for other human beings.