Federal Judge Blocks Indiana's New Immigration Law

Federal Judge Blocks Indiana's New Immigration Law

Friday, 24 Jun 2011 08:35 PM

INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge has blocked parts of Indiana's new immigration law.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker on Friday granted a request for an injunction blocking provisions of the law.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the National Immigration Law Center sued the state in May, contending the law gives police sweeping arrest powers against immigrants who haven't committed crimes. The state attorney general's office argued such fears were exaggerated, but Barker previously said she was concerned about how police officers would enforce the new law.

Indiana's new law also includes a provision making it illegal for immigrants to use ID cards issued by foreign consulates as proof of identification. The ACLU said that measure would interfere with foreign treaties allowing the cards.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/IndianaImmigr ... /id/401368

They committed a crime when they came over illegally in the first place.

Judge blocks parts of Indiana immigration law
June 24, 2011 10:27pm EDT
By Susan Guyett

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked parts of an Indiana immigration law cracking down on illegal immigrants in the state.

The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker comes as a blow to lawmakers in the Republican-dominated state legislature who this year have taken a get-tough approach to immigration.

Barker's decision was in response to a lawsuit filed with backing from the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the National Immigration Law Center.

The judge's decision temporarily blocks a provision of the state law signed in May that allows state and local police to arrest anyone ordered deported by an immigration court.

Barker also blocked a section of the law that would prohibit any person in the state, other than a police officer, from knowingly accepting or offering a consular ID card as a valid form of identification.

Barker said in her judgment that states such as Indiana have sought to enact immigration laws that do not run afoul of federal powers.

"Unfortunately, insofar as Indiana's efforts to carve out such a permissible role, at least with regard to the two sections of the statute under review here, their results have proven to be seriously flawed and generally unsuccessful," Barker wrote in her judgment.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement that the ruling represented "an indictment of the federal government" for failing to "enact and enforce immigration policy."

"It underscores the challenge to Indiana and other state lawmakers who have tried to respond to Washington's failure," Zoeller said.

A spokeswoman for Mitch Daniels, the state's Republican governor, said the governor's office would not issue comment Friday on the ruling.

Several U.S. states have this year passed legislation cracking down on illegal immigration, inspired by Arizona, where Republican governor Jan Brewer signed a law in April 2010 including a measure requiring police to determine the immigration status of those they have detained and suspect are in the country illegally.

Key parts of that law were blocked by a federal judge, after the Obama administration successfully sued arguing that it improperly infringed on federal powers. The ruling was upheld by an appeals court, although Arizona is taking its challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah and Georgia have also faced legal challenges to their state laws passed this year, while Alabama and South Carolina, which passed measures in June, are also likely to face legal challenges.

www.reuters.com

Federal judge blocks Indiana's new immigration law
By DEANNA MARTIN Associated Press
Posted: 06/24/2011 06:25:44 PM MDT

INDIANAPOLIS—A federal judge blocked parts of Indiana's new immigration law Friday, saying the law was the latest failed effort of states to deal with a primarily federal issue.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted a request for an injunction blocking two provisions of the law, which was approved this year by Republicans who control the Statehouse.

Barker wrote in the ruling that Indiana's law—as well as laws enacted in several other states—is an attempt to deal with what is seen as a failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration. She said the two provisions of Indiana's effort to deal with immigration "have proven to be seriously flawed and generally unsuccessful."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the National Immigration Law Center sued the state in May, contending the law gives police sweeping arrest powers against immigrants who haven't committed crimes.

"We are gratified that the court recognized that Indiana has no place in making immigration policy and we are happy that the constitutional rights of Indiana residents have been vindicated," said Ken Falk, an attorney with the ACLU of Indiana.

State Sen. Mike Delph, a Republican from Carmel who authored the immigration law, said he wasn't surprised by the ruling because temporary injunctions have been issued in similar cases. He predicted that backers of the law will ultimately prevail in court.

"I continue to fight for taxpayers and all immigrants who became citizens by following the law," Delph said. "This is just the beginning of the legal process and I look forward to working with (Attorney General Greg) Zoeller in defense of Indiana sovereignty and Hoosier taxpayers."

The state attorney general's office had argued in court that fears about the immigration law were exaggerated and based on a misunderstanding of the law.

"Today's ruling can be seen as an indictment of the federal government on their failure to enact and enforce immigration policy," Zoeller said in a statement Friday. "It underscores the challenge to Indiana and other state lawmakers who have tried to respond to Washington's failure."

The ACLU has said the law's wording would allow the arrest of anyone who has had a notice of action filed by immigration authorities, a formal paperwork step that affects virtually anyone applying to be in the U.S. for any reason. Barker had previously noted that it can take up to two weeks to get answers from federal immigration officials on specific cases—time a person arrested under the law could spend in jail waiting for immigration officials to bring law enforcement up to date on their case.

The other portion of the law that was blocked was a measure making it illegal for immigrants to use ID cards issued by foreign consulates as proof of identification. The ACLU estimates the Mexican consulate in Indianapolis has issued about 70,000 such ID cards, and said the state law would interfere with foreign treaties allowing the cards.

The National Immigration Law Center, based in Los Angeles, said the ruling prevented discriminatory elements of the law from taking effect.

"We look forward to the day that it is permanently removed from Indiana's law books," said Shiu-Ming Cheer, an attorney with the center.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/nationworld/ci_18348811

ACLU... Shame on you. Misleading people.

Quote:

---

The ACLU said that measure would interfere with foreign treaties allowing the cards.

---

What treaties? I don't know of a treaty that requires federal, state or local governments to honor the Matricula or makes it acceptable as a form of identification. I really don't think that will ever happen considering the findings of the US Justice Department regarding the instability and shoddy procedures used to create the identities associated with the cards.

ACLU, I want to know more about these alleged US treaties. I don't care what other countries accept, I'm concerned only with American policy.

I know it's the Treaty of Vienna 1870 you want to use.

" As a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
the United States is under an obligation to comply with the
nondiscrimination provisions of that Convention. Those
provisions call for parity and reciprocity among parties to the
Convention. The Convention specifies that better or worse
treatment will not be considered discriminatory as long as the
same favorable or restrictive treatment is also applied to U.S.
Citizens in the, quote, unquote sending state. In other words,
whatever treatment we give Mexican consuls, the same treatment
will be applied to U.S. Consuls in Mexico.
So if we use high barriers to Mexican nationals who want to
live, do business or travel in the U.S., then we can expect
that those same high barriers will be used against U.S.
Citizens in Mexico. This kind of practice unnecessarily creates
difficulties for U.S. Citizens and businesses." Source: Committee Hearing listed below.

With that being said, the US does not issue Matricula cards to our citizens. Our citizens travel with passports and so should Mexicans.

US State Department

"Since March 1, 2010, all U.S. citizens – including children – have been required to present a valid passport or passport card for travel beyond the “border zoneâ€

Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers
Sen. Delph, Spanish Rapper Weigh Issues

POSTED: 5:54 pm EDT June 26, 2011
UPDATED: 6:32 am EDT June 27, 2011

[DELICIOUS: Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers] [DIGG: Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers] [FACEBOOK: Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers] [REDDIT: Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers] [RSS] [PRINT: Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers] [EMAIL: Immigration Ruling Sparks Debate Among Hoosiers]
INDIANAPOLIS -- A recent ruling by a federal judge has reignited the debate over immigration reform among Hoosiers.

Portions of Indiana's new immigration law were blocked on Friday, 6News' Myrt Price reported.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker blocked the provision that prohibits the use of ID cards issued by foreign consulates and a provision that would allow local police to arrest people whose immigration status have been questioned by federal authorities.

Sen. Mike Delph introduced the original bill and said that he was disappointed after the judge's ruling was handed down.

"I continue to fight for taxpayers and all immigrants who became citizens by following the law. Illegal immigration is just that, illegal. Those unlawfully present should, on their own initiative, return to their country of origin and then re-enter by lawful means," Delph said.

Spanish rapper Guero Loco disagreed with Delph. He said he's been following the immigration debate, and he spoke at the Indiana Statehouse when the issue was on the floor.

"I just spoke from my perspective as an American. I see things from the other side, living a little inside of the Latino world," Loco said.

Loco is not Hispanic, but said he learned Spanish in the military and later began making Latino-inspired music.

"I agree with the judge's decision. I believe lawmakers should have never passed this bill to begin with," Loco said. "If they get rid of the consulate cards, that's going to push people more and more into the shadows, and I don't think that's healthy. Police are already strapped down enough with what they're doing, and they shouldn't have to worry about enforcing immigration law."

Both Delph and Loco agreed that something had to be done about immigration, but they disagreed on how the problem should be fixed.


http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28363062/detail.html

Delph criticizes federal judge over immigration ruling

Updated: Monday, 27 Jun 2011, 8:32 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 27 Jun 2011, 8:32 PM EDT
By: Jim Shella



INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - The state senator who authored Indiana's immigration reform law has criticism for the judge who struck down a portion of it. Mike Delph (R-Carmel) voiced that criticism on Facebook and Twitter.

That ruling came from federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker. She blocked the implementation of two provisions of the immigration reform law that is set to take effect Friday. Barker, like Delph, is a Republican, but Delph accuses her and other judges of "liberal elitism."

Barker is a Ronald Reagan appointee to the federal bench. She's a Republican who previously served as U.S. attorney.

But Delph posted messages on Facebook and Twitter following Barker's ruling on the immigration bill he authored that ignore that history.

"Liberal elitism is choking America, especially our Halls of Justice," he writes in one tweet posted Saturday.

In another he says: "Judicial reform is grossly needed both at the national and state level. One of the great American lies is that Judges are apolitical."

The two messages are combined in a single posting on the state senator's Facebook page.

Delph is a law school graduate who is studying for his second attempt to pass the bar exam. If he were an attorney already, his comments could get him in ethical trouble.

Said Bill Jonas of the state Bar Association when told of Delph's tweets: "I would counsel any applicant for the bar against intemperate criticism of any judicial official."

Delph said he was unavailable for an interview Monday, but in a phone call he said his criticism is not directed at Barker personally, but rather general statements directed at all judges. That includes Barker, however.

www.wishtv.com

Senator Slams Judge's Immigration Law Ruling

Delph Vents Through Social Media


POSTED: 4:53 pm EDT July 4, 2011

UPDATED: 6:25 pm EDT July 4, 2011


CARMEL, Ind. -- State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, has taken to social media to vehemently voice his displeasure over a federal judge's ruling last month that blocked parts of Indiana's immigration law that he sponsored.

Speaking with 6News' Joanna Massee on Monday at CarmelFest, Delph defended his strong response.

Delph lashed out through a series of posts on Facebook and tweets after Judge Sarah Evans Barker's ruling that blocked a provision that prohibits the use of ID cards issued by foreign consulates and a provision that would allow local police to arrest people whose immigration status has been questioned by federal authorities.

"Just as priests and the old Catholic Church had an interest to keep its monopoly on faith, so do the elites that control the judiciary," Delph tweeted over the weekend.

Delph graduated from law school last year and said he isn't concerned that his comments could hurt his legal practice later.

"That's not what my motivation is. My motivation is to do what I believe is right and to espouse issues that I believe are right," he said.

Delph said he went to law school to better understand the system, one that he appears to be growing increasingly disenchanted with.

"Let the battle against ivory tower elitism continue. It's the people's government, and that includes the judicial branch," Delph posted on Facebook.

"There are good decisions. There are bad decisions," Delph said Monday. "There are good judges. There are bad judges, and my comments were not targeted to any one individual."

Delph said he does feel singled out after he was recently uninvited from a naturalization ceremony led by Barker. He plans to file a brief in Barker's court in hopes of keeping the law he crafted intact.

"Last time I check, I'm a citizen as well as being an elected official, so I'm happy to exercise my right to petition my government," he said.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28442591/detail.html