Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #11
    Senior Member TexasBorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Getyourassoutahere, Texas
    Posts
    3,783
    Just what is this unreasonable burden??? Verifying that your potential employee isn't breaking the law?? Forget it pal, you've gotten a free ride for much too long now. Suck it up and obey the law!


    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The State Chamber, the Oklahoma City and Tulsa chambers of commerce, and the Oklahoma restaurant and hotel and lodging associations contend the law places unreasonable burdens on businesses, according to the lawsuit filed Feb. 1 by the National Chamber Litigation Center.
    ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...

    William Barret Travis
    Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836

  2. #12
    Senior Member Populist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,085
    Published June 04, 2008 05:04 pm - A federal judge has issued an order delaying enforcement of Oklahoma's anti-illegal immigration law, saying it is "substantially likely" it is unconstitutional.

    NEW: Federal court blocks law enforcement

    RON JENKINS
    Associated Press

    A federal judge blocked portions of Oklahoma's tough anti-illegal immigration law on Wednesday, saying it is "substantially likely" the law is unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the law that subjects employers to penalties for failing to comply with a federal employee verification system.

    The decision came on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Oklahoma Chamber and other business groups, who argued the electronic verification system is voluntary under federal law and employers should not be subjected to state penalties.

    "Through harsh civil penalties, the Oklahoma law unfairly shifts the burden of immigration enforcement from government onto the backs of business," Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber, said in statement.

    The state law took effect in November, 2007, but the employer provisions under attack were set to take effect July 1.

    Cauthron held that the plaintiffs were likely to establish that the state law pre-empted federal law on immigration.

    The judge wrote that the court should give grave consideration to overturning state law, but that the Constitution "requires that the will of the states must occasionally give way to the need for uniformity among the states and that uniformity can only be accomplished through congressional action."

    Cauthron said he was not deciding the case, but based on the facts before the court at this time "it appears that plaintiffs are likely to prevail and consequently are entitled to a preliminary injunction."

    Attorney General Drew Edmondson is defending the law. "We will attempt to overcome this hurdle when the matter is set for hearing on the permanent injunction," he said.

    Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, who introduced the legislation, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling.

    He predicted the case would be appealed to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and perhaps the Supreme Court if the plaintiffs prevail in their quest for a permanent injunction.


    Besides the employer provision, the law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, a provision loudly criticized by social agencies that work with the immigrant population.

    http://www.normantranscript.com/localne ... d=topstory
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #13
    Senior Member Populist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,085
    Here is the website of Rep. Randy Terrill (good guy), the author of HB 1804. Contact info is contained:

    http://www.okhouse.gov/committees/Membe ... emberID=69
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #14
    Senior Member Populist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,085
    [Published June 05, 2008 12:21 am - Judge postpones enforcement; Terrill lashes back about her motives
    Immigration measure hits snag

    The Norman Transcript

    Judge postpones enforcement; Terrill lashes back about her motives

    By M. Scott Carter

    Transcript Staff Writer

    OKLAHOMA CITY -- State Rep. Randy Terrill's controversial immigration law, House Bill 1804, hit a brick wall late Wednesday afternoon, after a U.S. District Court judge postponed enforcement of part of the measure.

    Western U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of certain provisions of HB 1804. Those provisions -- the bill's private employment sections -- subject employers to penalties for failing to comply with a federal employee verification system.

    In her 17-page ruling, Cauthron said the law's opponents were likely to establish the state law pre-empted federal law on immigration.

    "(The) defendants' argument that the statute represents nothing more than the State choosing with whom it wishes to contract is misleading," Cauthron wrote. "Without question the State can, within limits, set guidelines controlling the eligibility for contracts. However, the State cannot create or impose guidelines that conflict with the Constitution or Federal law."

    Cauthron said opponents of the law "are likely to prove that the statute at issue here is not a taxation statute but rather a form of civil sanction."

    And while Cauthron wrote the court should give "grave consideration to overturning state law," she added the Constitution "requires that the will of the states must occasionally give way to the need for uniformity among the states and that uniformity can only be accomplished through congressional action."

    Cauthron said she was not deciding the case, but based on the facts before the court at this time "it appears that plaintiffs are likely to prevail and consequently are entitled to a preliminary injunction."

    Terrill said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the court's action.

    "The outcome is not what we hoped for," he said. "It unnecessarily prolongs the litigation, and virtually guarantees appeals to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and perhaps the Supreme Court."

    Terrill, a Moore Republican, blasted Cauthron, describing the judge as a judicial activist.


    "Judge Cauthron is acting like a legislator today, but she is a Clinton appointee and the most liberal judge in western Oklahoma. She is a blatant example of judicial activism."

    While Cauthron's ruling granted a preliminary injunction on parts of the law, her order did not vacate the entire law.

    Instead, the court ruled the law unconstitutionally imposes civil sanctions on employers who fail to comply; including increased tax rates, loss of contracts and possible litigation if an employer "should have known" if an employee was unauthorized to work.

    Cauthron also called the act unconstitutional because it interferes with federal regulation of unauthorized workers. The law was set to go into effect July 1.

    Opponents of the measure praised the judge's ruling.

    Robin Conrad, a spokesman for the group representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the litigation, praised the decision.

    "We applaud the court's decision to delay enforcing these portions of Oklahoma's immigration law. Through harsh civil penalties, the Oklahoma law unfairly shifts the burden of immigration enforcement from government onto the backs of businesses," Conrad said.

    Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry's office remained silent about the ruling.

    Henry's spokesman, Paul Sund, declined to comment because the governor remains a party in the lawsuit. "Our legal council has advised us not to comment," Sund said.

    Terrill said Cauthron's ruling encouraged him to become more active in defending the law.

    "Her ruling certainly seems broad enough to permit me to intervene personally or to develop an association to defend HB 1804," he said.

    Terrill predicted state residents would be unhappy about the court's decision.

    "No Oklahoma business should be celebrating this decision," he said. "It allows the courts to do judicially what could not be done through the Legislature. This ruling allows the continuation of the exploitation of cheap, illegal immigrant labor. I promise you the people of the State of Oklahoma are not celebrating this decision today."

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    http://www.normantranscript.com/localne ... d=topstory
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #15
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,221
    Terrill said:
    "Judge Cauthron is acting like a legislator today, but she is a Clinton appointee and the most liberal judge in western Oklahoma. She is a blatant example of judicial activism."
    Well stated, 'judicial activism.' There seems to be a lot of that in this country. Reminds me of Prop 187 in CA.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #16
    wavleyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    85

    Obey & Enforce U.S. Constitution

    If the U.S. Government, judges and courts would obey the Constitution this problem would not exist, Article Four Section Four of the Constitution requires the U.S. to 'Protect the states from invasion and domestic violence', 20 million illegal aliens is proof they are not.
    Nonfeasance of office, the refusal to do that which should be done. Officials do not enforce the law, grounds for dismissal and prosecution for refusing to do what they were hired to do!

  7. #17
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,221
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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