Thread: Illegals & the courts: Sanity returns

Illegals & the courts: Sanity returns


Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Perhaps the rule of law means something after all when it comes to illegal aliens:

• U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake rejected arguments on Feb. 7 that an Arizona law banning the hiring of illegal aliens is an unconstitutional usurpation of the federal government's right to regulate immigration.

• Last month in Missouri, U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber upheld an ordinance that targeted employers of illegal aliens in Valley Park, Mo.

• In December, U.S. District Judge James H. Payne rejected a lawsuit filed against the state of Oklahoma and its law requiring employers to verify new employees' legal status. In a wonderful spate of sanity, Judge Payne said the illegals who brought the challenge didn't have standing -- because they're illegals, of course.

These rulings stand in sharp contrast to a federal judge's logic-defying ruling last summer that rejected Hazleton, Pa.'s, tough anti-illegals ordinance. That decision is on appeal.

University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas tells The New York Times that the recent litigation and rulings show the need for Congress to clarify the situation of illegal aliens.

Sorry, but no "clarification" is required. Here's a big hint -- the word "illegal" means what it means. And given that the judicial climate appears to be turning away what's wrong and embracing what's right, illegal aliens should be making some travel plans.

www.pittsburghlive.com

I L L E G A L

HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT GET? WHO NEEDS A ROADMAP TO FIGURE THIS OUT?

When fghting these battles it is good to know we are actually getting someplace, thank-you I find this upliftng.