Now whether you're for the immigration ban or against it, you should be able to see the absolute stupidity in such a legal argument.
Look closely - there can't be a ban because the state will lose tax revenue paid by the immigrants. Imagine the stupidity that has to be involved to think like that. But it has latin words, so it must be smart. Hahahaha - the stupidity, it burns.
And on the other side, apparently Obama lost an executive order because the state would lose drivers license revenue.
The legal profession should receive the respect it deserves - none. Zero. Zilch. They are idiots, employing idiots, engaged in a circular firing squad of intellectual stupidity.
As for standing, the States rely on the Snapp doctrine of parens patriae, as extended by Massachusetts v. EPA, but also on the doctrine that the States have suffered injury as proprietors. The proprietary argument is that the Order unduly affects State tax revenue, and higher education institutions that employ foreigners who are affected by the Order (the employers of persons who are legally in the U.S. and were unexpectedly caught overseas and can’t return, the employees and family of employees who have been affected by the Order, and persons who would be affected by the Order and now cannot travel). First, the States lose tax revenue from persons who cannot come to the U.S. to work or travel. Second, the State funds used to employ persons has been wasted if they cannot perform their functions, which is a burden on the States as proprietors of the institutions. The States cited U.S. v. Texas, the immigration case in which Judge Hanen and the 5th Circuit said additional State costs/burdens in lost driver’s license revenue justified a stay of Obama’s DACA and DAPA orders.
Following this to its most outrageous extension (at least we can have a little humor, no?):
Some Guy: Why did the government fire a tomahawk missile at Farmer Brown's house killing all the members of his daughter's wedding party in Colorado?
Gov: Farmer Brown was impacting a SJW in her safe space in San Diego. Said SJW was upset that the yellow-bellied woodpecker was going thirsty in the Arizona Desert.
Some Guy: Wait. What? That doesn't even make sense.
Gov: Well, the Farmer got in a dispute with his neighbor and shot his cow.
Some Guy: I don't follow....
Gov: Under dici deci, we allege that the farmer's neighbor's cow died near a rivulet that feeds a stream that feeds a tributary that feeds the Colorado river....maybe. And that cow polluted, potentially the river. Surely Some Guy does not maintain that the cow caused NO HARM WHATSOEVER to the rivulet/stream/tributary/Colorado river?
Some Guy: Well, I guess that there must be at least one bacteria from the cow in the Colorado, but what about the hundreds of mule deer that no doubt died in a natural fashion and therefore caused a million times the pollution that the cow did.
Gov: Under Principi Idiota, we stipulate that the court must find that if the cow could have caused the problem, the cow MUST be found to have caused the problem...because of the potential.
Some Guy: You don't even know if the bird ever drank from the Colorado. Plus doesn't the Colorado run hundreds of miles from there.
Gov: We must assume that the SJW believed that the yellow bellied woodpecker would have flown those hundreds of miles to get water, and was therefore aggrieved by Farmer Brown's daughter's entire wedding party.
Some Guy: But we have a scientific study showing that no yellow bellied woodpecker has ever been observed traveling more than 5 miles from its nest for water, and so it is factually impossible that the bird was harmed by the cow, and therefore the cow's owner.
Gov: Your honor, it does not matter if it is factually possible. All that is required under Lex Dementia is that the SJW actually BELIEVE that the bird be harmed. So, you see, your honor, the government had no choice to end the suffering except to fire the tomahawk missile into Farmer Brown's farmhouse.
Look closely - there can't be a ban because the state will lose tax revenue paid by the immigrants. Imagine the stupidity that has to be involved to think like that. But it has latin words, so it must be smart. Hahahaha - the stupidity, it burns.
And on the other side, apparently Obama lost an executive order because the state would lose drivers license revenue.
The legal profession should receive the respect it deserves - none. Zero. Zilch. They are idiots, employing idiots, engaged in a circular firing squad of intellectual stupidity.
As for standing, the States rely on the Snapp doctrine of parens patriae, as extended by Massachusetts v. EPA, but also on the doctrine that the States have suffered injury as proprietors. The proprietary argument is that the Order unduly affects State tax revenue, and higher education institutions that employ foreigners who are affected by the Order (the employers of persons who are legally in the U.S. and were unexpectedly caught overseas and can’t return, the employees and family of employees who have been affected by the Order, and persons who would be affected by the Order and now cannot travel). First, the States lose tax revenue from persons who cannot come to the U.S. to work or travel. Second, the State funds used to employ persons has been wasted if they cannot perform their functions, which is a burden on the States as proprietors of the institutions. The States cited U.S. v. Texas, the immigration case in which Judge Hanen and the 5th Circuit said additional State costs/burdens in lost driver’s license revenue justified a stay of Obama’s DACA and DAPA orders.
Following this to its most outrageous extension (at least we can have a little humor, no?):
Some Guy: Why did the government fire a tomahawk missile at Farmer Brown's house killing all the members of his daughter's wedding party in Colorado?
Gov: Farmer Brown was impacting a SJW in her safe space in San Diego. Said SJW was upset that the yellow-bellied woodpecker was going thirsty in the Arizona Desert.
Some Guy: Wait. What? That doesn't even make sense.
Gov: Well, the Farmer got in a dispute with his neighbor and shot his cow.
Some Guy: I don't follow....
Gov: Under dici deci, we allege that the farmer's neighbor's cow died near a rivulet that feeds a stream that feeds a tributary that feeds the Colorado river....maybe. And that cow polluted, potentially the river. Surely Some Guy does not maintain that the cow caused NO HARM WHATSOEVER to the rivulet/stream/tributary/Colorado river?
Some Guy: Well, I guess that there must be at least one bacteria from the cow in the Colorado, but what about the hundreds of mule deer that no doubt died in a natural fashion and therefore caused a million times the pollution that the cow did.
Gov: Under Principi Idiota, we stipulate that the court must find that if the cow could have caused the problem, the cow MUST be found to have caused the problem...because of the potential.
Some Guy: You don't even know if the bird ever drank from the Colorado. Plus doesn't the Colorado run hundreds of miles from there.
Gov: We must assume that the SJW believed that the yellow bellied woodpecker would have flown those hundreds of miles to get water, and was therefore aggrieved by Farmer Brown's daughter's entire wedding party.
Some Guy: But we have a scientific study showing that no yellow bellied woodpecker has ever been observed traveling more than 5 miles from its nest for water, and so it is factually impossible that the bird was harmed by the cow, and therefore the cow's owner.
Gov: Your honor, it does not matter if it is factually possible. All that is required under Lex Dementia is that the SJW actually BELIEVE that the bird be harmed. So, you see, your honor, the government had no choice to end the suffering except to fire the tomahawk missile into Farmer Brown's farmhouse.
