Results 1 to 6 of 6

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

    States' immigration drive hits impasse in the courts

    States' immigration drive hits impasse in the courts

    By Tim Gaynor
    Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:22pm EDT

    PHOENIX (Reuters) - A year ago, immigrant labor activist Salvador Reza thought Arizona's tough state immigration crackdown could empty the work site he ran in north Phoenix.

    But 12 months on, after a federal judge blocked key parts of the law, day laborers still line up from dawn to tout for work, occasionally heckled by protesters who want them gone. In short, deadlock.

    "This is low intensity warfare that's going to go on for years," said Reza.

    The stalemate at the sun-baked day labor site in Phoenix is emblematic of the impasse around the country as other states have followed Arizona's lead on immigration, only to be knocked back by the courts.

    Parts of Arizona's law -- notably a measure requiring police to quiz those they detained and suspected of being in the country illegally about their immigration status -- were blocked hours before they took effect last July, after a judge ruled that immigration matters are Washington's responsibility.

    The wave of judicial rebuttals continued in May, when a federal judge temporarily blocked Arizona-style enforcement provisions in a package of immigration laws passed by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in March.

    Then in June, key parts of tough state crackdowns due to take effect in both Georgia and Indiana on July 1 -- seeking immigration powers for police and other restrictions -- were stayed in temporary injunctions imposed by the courts.

    In Alabama, civil rights groups last week filed a challenge to a law widely seen as the nation's toughest, requiring public schools to determine the immigration status of students and punishing employers who hire people who are not legal residents and landlords who knowingly rent property to them.

    "It's been kind of one step forward and one step back," said Bruce Merrill, an Arizona State University pollster and political scientist, of the emerging pattern of deadlock.

    "All it does for me is emphasize the need for true reform at the federal level," he added.

    'NO DESIRE FOR COMPROMISE'

    The states passed the laws amid frustration at the federal government's failure to overhaul the United States' broken immigration system, tightening security along the porous Mexico border and tackling the status of 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the shadows.

    "We promised the people of Alabama we would take action to combat illegal immigration in this state, and that's what this law does," Mike Hubbard, the Republican speaker of the Alabama state House said in a statement last Friday after the state's law was challenged in a suit.

    While each court ruling adds to the impasse, any resolution remains far off, analysts say, either in terms of Washington overhauling immigration laws, or the courts reaching a final ruling on the states' measures.

    Under pressure as he heads for reelection next year, President Barack Obama reiterated his support for a major immigration shake-up in a key-note speech in El Paso in May, giving millions of illegal immigrants a shot at citizenship if they pay a fine and go to the back of the line.

    But while he said his Democratic administration had met Republican concerns over border security -- by boosting the number of federal border police, among other steps -- there is no mood for compromise in the U.S. Congress before he seeks reelection in November next year.

    "If you look at the Republican House, it's complete intransigence. There's no desire to look for some realistic compromise reform," said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University in Texas.

    The legal battle in the courts is also likely years from any final resolution.

    Arizona has yet to petition the U.S. Supreme Court in its immigration battle, and any resolution of the state's appeal there could be delayed while lower courts thrash out appeals lodged by others states, legal experts say.

    "At the moment it seems likely that it's going to take a couple of years before there's a final decision from the Supreme Court," said Gabriel "Jack" Chin, Chester H. Smith Professor of Law at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

    "I think we are still in the early to middle stage of the legal journey here," he added.

    (Additional reporting by Colleen Jenkins in St Petersburg; Editing by Greg McCune)

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... ZO20110712
    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
    Administrator ALIPAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Gheen, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    67,706
    Not surprised to see this kind of propaganda going out full force to the American public via Reuters.

    The message is "We got you, we blocked you, dont try to fight back states." and of course that is the message that AP and Reuters want Americans to believe.

    W
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ratbstard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
    Posts
    12,611
    Factbox: State crackdowns on illegal immigration
    Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:22pm EDT

    (Reuters) - Several states have passed laws cracking down on illegal immigration since Arizona blazed a path last year with a measure defying the federal government's authority to set national policy.

    The states are acting over what they say is Washington's failure to tackle immigration and secure the porous border with Mexico, although several federal judges have since handed down stays blocking parts of these laws.

    Following are facts on some recent state measures on immigration, and their current status.

    * Alabama - Republican Governor Robert Bentley signed a law in June requiring police to detain anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce documentation when stopped for any reason. The law, which is scheduled to take effect September 1, requires public schools to determine the immigration status of students, punishes employers for hiring workers who are not legal residents and mandates businesses use a database called E-Verify to confirm the status of new employees. It also prohibits landlords from knowingly renting property to an illegal immigrant. Civil rights groups sued to block the law on July 8.

    * Arizona - A U.S. judge blocked a portion of a tough immigration law, signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010, that would require police to determine the immigration status of those they have detained and suspect are in the country illegally. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed separate Arizona immigration provisions, including the right of the state to punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants and requiring employers to check worker citizenship status through a database called E-Verify.

    * Georgia - Late last month a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction halting the state from implementing measures authorizing police officers to question criminal suspects about their immigration status. The judge also blocked portions of the legislation that would make it a crime to knowingly harbor or transport an illegal immigrant while committing another offense. The remainder of the law, signed by Republican Governor Nathan Deal, took effect July 1.

    * Indiana - A federal judge in June temporarily blocked a provision of the state law signed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels that allows state and local police to arrest anyone ordered deported by an immigration court. The judge faulted the Indiana bill, which was due to take effect July 1, for not requiring the arrested person be brought before a judge for potential release. The judge 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.

    * Louisiana - In early July, Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal signed two measures requiring the use of E-Verify by businesses. One requires all private contractors who want contracts with state or local public entities to use E-verify. The other requires all businesses to either use E-verify or keep photo ID records on each employee as well as proof they're authorized to work, including copies of birth certificates or naturalization records.

    * North Carolina - Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue in June signed into law a measure requiring businesses with 25 or more employees to check the citizenship status of job applicants on E-Verify. The legislation will require about 40 percent of the state's businesses to verify the immigration status of new hires following a 24-month phase-in period. It provides an exemption for agriculture companies that employ people such as crop pickers for 90 days or less.

    * South Carolina - Republican Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill into law in June that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest for another reason and suspect may be in the country illegally. Under the new law, which goes into effect January 1, employers in South Carolina will be required to use E-Verify to check the citizenship status of employees and job applicants. Penalties for knowingly employing illegal immigrants will include suspension and revocation of a business license by the state.

    * Texas - The Texas House of Representatives approved a measure that would crack down on cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants. The measure would have prohibited local governments from banning law enforcement officers asking about the immigration status of people who are lawfully detained or arrested. The so-called "sanctuary cities" bill died in late June when the Texas legislature adjourned for another two years without passing it.

    * Utah - A federal judge in May blocked the enforcement provision in a two-pronged package of immigration laws signed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert in March. The package comprised of four bills Herbert called "the Utah solution," including an Arizona-style enforcement component and another that would create a guest-worker program.

    * Arizona-style laws have been rejected or failed to advance during the 2011 legislative session in California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.

    (Sources: Reuters; National Immigration Forum and the National Conference of State Legislatures)

    (Compiled by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix and Colleen Jenkins in St. Petersburg, and Karen Brooks in Austin; Edited by Greg McCune)

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... 5Q20110712
    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 GaPatriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    879
    The illegal alien profiteers are going crazy here in Georgia. They say that the law won't work yet filed a law suit and are trying all kinds of gimmicks to get it unenforced.

    We have had boycotts, day without an immigrant, several marches demanding rights, the Dreamers creating havoc by sitting down in traffic, attempts to get Porsche not to build their expected manufacturing plant here, and even old Al Sharpton in the GA heat of 100 degrees for a protest. He bussed in 5 bus loads of public union goons (from I have no idea where but they were not professional looking) and we are a right to work state. Now supposedly two activists are on a hunger strike. Which is good because they are spreading lies that big corporate farmers' crops are dying on the vine because migrants are afraid to come to GA. These subsidized millionaires have enough money to hire actual citizens to pick their crops but they refuse.

    Ho Hum, Ho Hum - no one is even paying any attention - we are struggling with no money in our city, county, and state coffers to provide transportation, police, fire and other services we have had provided in the past. They are raising our property tax rates and our schools are broke.

    Our unemployment rate is higher than the national average, and every day we have another news story of an illegal alien who committed yet another crime . Today's illegal alien crime story du jour was a 12 year old girl attempted kidnapping by a homeless illegal.

    The illegal criminal profiteers are getting more and more desperate to overturn this law. Me thinks they protest too much - adios amigo.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    montana
    Posts
    1,308
    Every state needs to be allowed to arrest any and all illegals found at day labor sites, construction sites, and farm areas. Arrest them and take them in bulk to the Federal offices and make sure plenty of press is there as well. Feds hate that type of publicity. Make it a big deal and make sure plenty of state officials are there as well to demand the Feds take action and remove these criminals from our communities. If the Federal courts don't like it...tough..dump some of the illegals on the judges doorstep too.

  6. #6
    Senior Member ReformUSA2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,305
    They keep trying to spin the whole compromise crap. Now I'm all for compromise when the agenda is the same but its about splitting the nickels and dimes.

    But seriously how do you compromise when 1 side says we want fully open borders and wants to allow anyone who comes to stay as long as they vote for that side. Yet the other side wants to secure the borders and be selective with who enters the country and does so legally. Wheres the compromise to be found as both sides are at the far end of the table and there is no crap like "well we'll allow it in 50% the states" middle ground.

    Then what about the budget. One side wants to spend spend spend far more then they take in and raise taxes. The other side wants to cut back majorly and shut down crap programs. Then cut taxes.

    Seriously there is no compromise. If out of 2 people one wants an apple and the other an orange and together they can only have 1 or the other they have to choose one.

Posting Permissions

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