Thread: Civil rights groups ask court to block immigration law

Originally Posted by Bowman

Prop 187 was way different than SB1070, 187 would have ended public education for illegal children even though the Supreme Court had already ruled they were entitled to a public education. This made it an easy target for certain blockage.

There were many more issues in 187.
It was worded so that any section that was ruled against could be separated for any that were upheld.
It never got to the Supreme Court because the governor dropped it.

California Proposition 187 (1994)

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California. The proposed law was initially passed by the voters through referendum in November 1994 but later found unconstitutional by a federal court, with appeals against the judgement being halted by Governor Gray Davis in 1999.

Proposition 187 heated up the ongoing issue of illegal immigration into the United States and the state's large illegal Latino population. The law was viewed by opponents as based largely on xenophobia toward immigrants of Hispanic origin, and supporters generally insisted that their concerns were economic.

Originally Posted by Captainron

There could be differences, John Doe.

Some questions I have:
1.What standing do these groups have, at least until they find someone who is impacted by the Arizona law?
2. There are thousands of state laws which have been passed that have survived legal challenges.
3. The state law is less stringent than the federal law, and the federal law has not been struck down
4. States are forbidden by Supreme Court doctrines from passing laws that contradict federal immigration policy. We know the federal policy is still to deport illegal aliens.

My answers to those questions would mean nothing.
The only person whose opinion matters is the first judge who hears the arguments.
After that if he or she blocks it it is blocked until it works it's way through the courts or a higher court judge unblocks it.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by Captainron

There could be differences, John Doe.

Some questions I have:
1.What standing do these groups have, at least until they find someone who is impacted by the Arizona law?
2. There are thousands of state laws which have been passed that have survived legal challenges.
3. The state law is less stringent than the federal law, and the federal law has not been struck down
4. States are forbidden by Supreme Court doctrines from passing laws that contradict federal immigration policy. We know the federal policy is still to deport illegal aliens.

My answers to those questions would mean nothing.
The only person whose opinion matters is the first judge who hears the arguments.
After that if he or she blocks it it is blocked until it works it's way through the courts or a higher court judge unblocks it.

I know. I am just saying that we should not accept it as foregone that a judge will strike 1070 down. And people should raise issues to support it and submit them to the court. That is what the opponents are doing. Every major piece of legislation faces similar input from interested groups.

I don't know what legal arguments will arise. The bedrock truth, though, is that the large majority of Americans support this and trust me, that does have an effect on judges decisions. And concerning the people who say they don't support it, how do we even know they are US constituents? Do the poll takers ask?

I'm sure the opponents are jurisdiction shopping and seeking for any other kind of conceivable argument to win. However, we do have a vast precedent in the US of immigration laws BEING UPHELD. I've seen laws struck down, but a lot of the time they were poorly written.

No matter what the first judge decides the loosing side will be in another court the next day trying to get a judge to rule to their liking.
And it will be in court for years.

Groups behind a lawsuit challenging SB1070 say it would promote racial profiling of Latinos and violates numerous parts of the Constitution, including the First and Fourth amendments.

At least Latinos are admitting that there are lots of Latino illegal aliens. Should police officers never attempt to ask for identification from Hispanic people because to do so would be racial profiling? Well guess what? Most of the illegal aliens in the country are Hispanic. And what does our Constitution have to do with illegal aliens rights?

Police are SUPPOSED to profile. It's one of their tools to FIND the bad guys. That's how they find airplane bombers before they strike. If a federal judge says that racial profiling is wrong I will pack up and leave this country.

Added to Homepage;
http://www.alipac.us/article-5330--0-0.html

DO NOT BLOCK THE LAW. DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.

We should be filing 2 lawsuits for every one they file.