Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
- 06-26-2012, 06:22 PM #1
Levin: SCOTUS immigration decision clears way to sue sanctuary cities, states with in
Levin: SCOTUS immigration decision clears way to sue sanctuary cities, states with in-state tuition
The Daily Caller
SEE VIDEO AT LINK.
On his Monday show, conservative radio host Mark Levin explained why yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the controversial Arizona immigration law, could pave the way for legal action against “sanctuary” areas that welcome undocumented immigrants. Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” first expressed his disappointment in Chief Justice John Roberts for signing on with the decision, which dismantled much of the Arizona law while upholding a section that allows law enforcement to force suspected immigrants to show documentation that proves their legal residency.
“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal activity.”
However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find themselves in hot water.
“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”
The same goes for states that offer in-state tuition at colleges for illegal aliens, Levin said.
“In-state tuition clearly is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it for illegal aliens,” he said. “Again — if the court’s position is that the federal government has complete preemptive authority over this issue, the federal government has not authorized in-state tuition for illegal aliens of any kind. So sue your state if they’ve instituted in-state tuition for illegals.”
This point has been made by Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation in a brief published earlier this year, noting a decision similar to the one yesterday would create “chaos and confusion”:If the federal government’s politically motivated challenge of SB 1070 is successful, rather than bring consistency and certainty to immigration on a national level, it will create even more chaos and confusion. The federal Executive Branch’s selective and inconsistent application of field preemption in immigration law must not be given this Court’s imprimatur. Otherwise, lawless state and local governments that have adopted sanctuary policies that directly violate federal immigration law and have not been challenged by the Executive Branch will continue to be lawless. Conversely, law-abiding governments that help enforce federal immigration law will be without direction.
Read more: Levin: SCOTUS Arizona decision clears way to sue sanctuary cites | The Daily Caller
Last edited by HAPPY2BME; 06-27-2012 at 08:25 AM.
- 06-26-2012, 07:13 PM #2
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
Houston, Dallas, State of TEXAS.
LA, San Diego....
Cripe, the list is probably long enough to employ hundreds if not thousnads of lawyers.
- 06-27-2012, 12:36 AM #3
RELATED TURNING THE SCREWS ON THE SANCTUARIES ...
Supreme Court decision may soon end 'Sanctuary Cities'
by Robert Flynn
June 25, 2012 09:25 PM EDT
The Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law and while liberals across the nation are celebrating victory, they have not truly understood the implications for Sanctuary Cities. The nation's highest court struck down three of the four key provisions of the law, including the parts which required immigrants to carry immigration papers and for an illegal immigrant to seek work in Arizona. The court also struck down the provision that "gave the police authority to arrest immigrants for crimes that may lead to deportation." The only part of the law that the court upheld was the right of police to check the immigration status of people involved in lawful stops when there is a reasonable suspicion that they may be in the country illegally.
While the liberal Democrats applaud the ruling, they may have not fully thought the decision through. Those who claim victory are only seeing the decision through the prism of a Democratic President, without thinking of what will happen when a Republican sits in the White House. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that a "state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," but what will this mean when Barack Obama ceases to decide federal law and a Republican President does?
Just as President Obama has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to stop deportations of certain illegal immigrants, a Republican president can order those same people deported. Liberals have not thought about what it means when the shoe is on the other foot. For instance, if the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House, they will have the legal authority to make whatever immigration laws they like.
And with the decision handed down today, the court has determined that federal immigration law overrides any state of local law. Writing further, Justice Kennedy added, "Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation's borders." And that if one state could decide immigration practices, then "every state could give itself independent authority...".
This means that if the state of Arizona could not create a statute that involves federal immigration law, then other states (or cities) cannot either. In other words, since immigration policy is up to the federal government, no state, county, or city can pass statues that concern federal immigration laws—either for or against.
Therefore, it seems that the so-called "Sanctuary Cities," that have sprung up across the nation would also be illegal under this ruling. And since the President has already demonstrated his willingness to disregard federal laws when they do not suit him, it is unlikely that the federal government under President Obama will be enforcing this part of the decision.
But if Mitt Romney wins the election in November, then federal laws, especially those affecting the mostly Democratic immigrant community, may be enforced with much more aplomb. What will those in "Sanctuary Cities" do when the newly revitalized ICE agents come knocking at the door? After all, "Sanctuary Cities" are an area of concentration for those in the country illegally.
The truth may be that how the decision by Supreme Court of the United States actually affects the immigrant community relies entirely on the person sitting in the White House.
source: http://politics.gather.com/viewArtic...81474981429080U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: GUARANTEES AMERICA FROM INVASION!
- 06-27-2012, 08:50 AM #4
ADDED TO ALIPAC HOMEPAGE News with amended title ..
http://www.alipac.us/content/levin-s...es-states-689/U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: GUARANTEES AMERICA FROM INVASION!
- 06-27-2012, 10:03 AM #5The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato