Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040

    Immigration laws pose a test of states' rights in Supreme Court

    Immigration laws pose a test of states' rights in Supreme Court

    Strict new immigration laws in six states have been partially blocked by lower courts, but they are expected to receive a more favorable ruling by the Supreme Court.

    By David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
    December 28, 2011, 5:53 p.m.

    Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles— Federal judges have blocked strict new immigration laws adopted by conservative legislatures in half a dozen states, including a ruling last week that said South Carolina may not set up a "street-level dragnet" to stop and arrest illegal immigrants.

    But immigrant rights advocates who have cheered those rulings may soon find their luck has run out as those rulings head for the Supreme Court. Legal experts believe the high court's conservative majority will take a sharply different approach.

    So far, lower-court judges have mostly sided with the Obama administration, ruling, as U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel did in the South Carolina case, that regulating immigration is the province solely of the federal government, not the states.

    "The clear message, from judges across the country, is that the states have overreached," said UC Davis law professor Gabriel Chin.

    In addition to South Carolina, judges have blocked extensive parts of immigration laws in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Utah and some parts of an Alabama law.

    In Georgia, for example, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. blocked parts of that state's law including one authorizing police to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification. "The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," Thrash wrote in his June ruling.

    A few days earlier, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker put on hold part of Indiana's law that authorized the arrest of anyone ordered deported by an immigration court. Last week in South Carolina, Gergel, an Obama appointee, blocked the state from giving police the authority to arrest and hold suspected illegal immigrants while checking their immigration status.

    In Arizona, a federal judge backed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco halted six parts of the state law, including one that made it a crime to lack immigration papers or to work in the state while in the country illegally.

    In Alabama, a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta put on hold several provisions of that state's law, the strictest in the nation, including one that required schools to check the immigration status of new students.

    Other major parts of the Alabama law were allowed to take effect, however, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of persons who are lawfully stopped or taken into custody.

    Immigrant rights advocates say nearly all the judges have agreed that states cannot make immigration offenses a state crime.

    "The common thread is that states can't be in the business of finding and locking up people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants," said Cecillia Wang, director of the national Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The Alabama ruling is the one notable exception to that trend.

    Advocates for immigrants often describe the cases as being about civil rights and fears of racial profiling. But in court, the key question is whether states have the power to use their judges and state and local police to enforce policies against illegal immigration.

    When Congress last revised the immigration laws, it said states may "cooperate" with the federal government in "the identification, apprehension, detention or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." The states that have passed restrictive laws say that's exactly what they are doing.

    The Obama administration disagrees. In its legal arguments against Arizona's law, the administration says the state's policies conflict with the federal government's emphasis on deporting violent criminals, drug dealers and smugglers who are in the country illegally, not the hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who may be living and working here.

    But in May, the Supreme Court signaled skepticism about a similar argument.

    The justices upheld another Arizona law that punished employers who hire illegal workers. In his opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sounded a states' rights theme and set a "high threshold" for striking down a state law on the grounds that it conflicted with the aims of the federal government.

    Roberts' ruling was part of a trend on the high court that sweeps more broadly in addressing immigration disputes. In the last decade, the court increasingly has been reluctant to strike down state laws as being "preempted" by federal law unless Congress has clearly said that states have no role to play. Arizona lawyers played on that theme in their appeal.

    Moreover, "the states have an inherent police power" within their borders, said former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who represents Arizona.

    John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, said the Supreme Court was likely to look at immigration disputes differently from the lower courts. It is "a peculiar idea," he said, for the federal government to assert that states may not enforce immigration laws within their borders.

    The high court said it would hear the Arizona immigration case in April, and Eastman said he expected the justices to divide along the same lines as in the May ruling upholding Arizona's sanctions on employers who hire illegal workers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with Roberts in that case.

    Peter Spiro, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, says he expected key parts of the Arizona law would be upheld. "As usual, Kennedy will be the decider," he said. "And I think he'll be accommodating of state interests."

    david.savage@latimes.com
    carol.williams@latimes.com

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2286951.story
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,966
    "And I think he'll be accommodating of state interests."
    I sure hope so. We fight to our exhaustion for enforcement. Against our freaking own government. We pay them.. To fight us... With our money? Next Case. Dumb-asses vs. dumber than dumb-asses that pay dumber than dumbasses... Oh man....!
    Dumb-asses prove your case....Your honors, The people, I mean the dumb-asses ....oh Christ!
    You can't make this crap up! Its Unreal!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ratbstard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
    Posts
    12,611

    Immigration laws pose a test of states' rights in Supreme Court

    Strict new immigration laws in six states have been partially blocked by lower courts, but they are expected to receive a more favorable ruling by the Supreme Court.

    latimes.com
    By David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times

    December 28, 2011, 5:53 p.m.


    Protesters sit outside the Alabama Capitol during a demonstration against the state's immigration law. (Dave Martin / AP Photo / November 15, 2011)

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tional+News%29
    Last edited by Ratbstard; 12-29-2011 at 07:51 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member southBronx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,758
    Hello
    what part don't you illegal Immigrants' don't understand I for get you can not read English ?
    well get someone. why don't you get your gov to help you
    sure in hell Our gov don't help us
    American are in one hell of a hole why Obama help all the other Country money go out left & right In the Wh
    as Trump he will tell you
    why obama is not fit to be our president .
    obama administration don't know the left hand from the right hand what the hell is that telling us
    it time to get out of the wh
    No amnesty or dream act & this is no joke

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ratbstard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
    Posts
    12,611

    States Rights in Center of Immigration Laws Challenges

    ireport.cnn.com
    By k3vsDad
    Posted 3 hours ago
    Farmersburg, Indiana

    Not Vetted by CNN

    States rights have been a major theme in the the Republican presidential race. Now the same issue is making its way to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a number of cases on immigration with states versus the federal government.

    At issue is the immigration laws passed in Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona and Utah. These states have passed immigration laws over the past year that lower courts have blocked at the urging of the Justice Department.

    But immigrant rights advocates who have cheered those rulings may soon find their luck has run out as those rulings head for the Supreme Court. Legal experts believe the high court's conservative majority will take a sharply different approach.

    http://mcall.com/news/nationworld/sn...,1323842.story

    As recently as May, the Supreme Court sided with the state of Arizona over another immigration law.

    The justices upheld another Arizona law that punished employers who hire illegal workers. In his opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sounded a states' rights theme and set a "high threshold" for striking down a state law on the grounds that it conflicted with the aims of the federal government.

    Roberts' ruling was part of a trend on the high court that sweeps more broadly in addressing immigration disputes. In the last decade, the court increasingly has been reluctant to strike down state laws as being "preempted" by federal law unless Congress has clearly said that states have no role to play. Arizona lawyers played on that theme in their appeal.

    Opponents of the states' laws say there is a common thread and theme in the laws and in overturning these acts.

    "The common thread is that states can't be in the business of finding and locking up people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants," said Cecillia Wang, director of the national Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The Alabama ruling is the one notable exception to that trend.

    Advocates for immigrants often describe the cases as being about civil rights and fears of racial profiling. But in court, the key question is whether states have the power to use their judges and state and local police to enforce policies against illegal immigration.

    What is at issue is a change in the law by Congress that seems to support the states claims to be able to pass and enforce the immigration laws.

    When Congress last revised the immigration laws, it said states may "cooperate" with the federal government in "the identification, apprehension, detention or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." The states that have passed restrictive laws say that's exactly what they are doing.

    The Obama administration disagrees. In its legal arguments against Arizona's law, the administration says the state's policies conflict with the federal government's emphasis on deporting violent criminals, drug dealers and smugglers who are in the country illegally, not the hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who may be living and working here.

    But in May, the Supreme Court signaled skepticism about a similar argument.

    The Supremes agreed to hear the Arizona case in May. A decision is expected by next fall which could impact the other states and those immigration laws as well.

    From the Cornfield, immigration is a tricky issue and sparks heated emotions on both sides of the issue.



    When the federal government fails to act, what are states suppose to do?

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-7238...feeds%2Flatest
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •