Thread: Seeking help to challenge Utah Immigration laws.

I am seeking to constitutionally challenge the Utah immigration laws. I have no funding and there are no qualified trial lawyers in Utah with a constitutional law and civil law background.

I am seeking help with both funding and qualified counsel.

Here is a letter sent to the ACLU of Utah. I do not expect that body to file effective litigation against these improper and unconstitutional laws.

Thanks in advance.
-----

To: ACLU of Utah
From: withheld
Re: Utah Immigration Laws

ACLU:

I have serious concerns in regard to the immigrations bills HB 116, HB 466, and HB 469 that Governor Herbert signed into law on 3-15-2011. If possible I will challenge those bills myself. Unfortunately, I am disabled and finances will prohibit a direct challenge unless I can find funding.

HB 469 allows any Utah citizen to sponsor an illegal alien after paying a fee and attesting to being financially responsible for said alien. This bill does not place any requirement of workplace enforcement, safety requirements, housing requirements, health insurance requirements, or minimum pay if the alien is used in a work environment on the sponsor. If the immigrant alien does not perform to the sponsors expectations and the sponsor withdraws his/her sponsorship, then under HB 497 and the US immigration code the alien is subject to deportation. HB 469 creates a system in which people would be in violation of the human smuggling provisions of 8 USC 1324 and would unfairly place many people at risk of federal prosecution and also unfairly place many at unnecessary risk of deportation. In effect, HB 469 creates a system of slavery in the state in violation of amendment 14, US Const. HB 469 also violates federal preemption in immigration.

HB 466 has the constitutional flaw of intruding into the United States rights to enter into foreign treaties and the exclusion of the states in this area. On its face, HB 466 is unconstitutional.

HB 116 has several flaws, besides the preemption issues, this bill requires the state of Utah to collect federally owed taxes in the event that an illegal alien worker does not have a social security number or an ITIN, and remit those funds to the federal government, if and when the state chooses. This provision alone is in violation of federal tax code and sets the state up to deny the revenue to the federal government if the federal government were to pass a law the state disagreed with.

HB 116 removes these provisions of the applicant of a foreign immigrant worker, H2 program, provided to the immigrant and places those burdens directly on the alien worker:
â—

Welcome to ALIPAC wayman... Have a little patience... there will be lawsuits filed In short order,you can count on It

Welcome to ALIPAC wayman.
Check Judicial Watch, they may already be looking at this.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/

HB 116 permits the termination from employment of a US citizen or legal alien and replacement with an illegal immigrant.

How were such Legislation allowed to be signed into law by a State?

Strange.

Originally Posted by Pisces_2010

HB 116 permits the termination from employment of a US citizen or legal alien and replacement with an illegal immigrant.

How were such Legislation allowed to be signed into law by a State?

Strange.

Representative Bill Wright and Representative Dougall are dairy farmers who want to be able to bypass the requirements of the federal agricultural program.

Originally Posted by whyman

Representative Bill Wright and Representative Dougall are dairy farmers who want to be able to bypass the requirements of the federal agricultural program.

"If this is true then these guys will investigate it!"
http://www.le.state.ut.us/lrgc/lrgc.htm

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

"If this is true then these guys will investigate it!"
http://www.le.state.ut.us/lrgc/lrgc.htm

I do not think so. Rep. Wright is part of the system. The system protects its members.

This is the legislative note that that office attached to the bill, notice that the bill was still passed:

"Legislative Review Note
as of 2-15-11 2:35 PM
As required by legislative rule and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General
Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its
own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill. The note is based on an analysis of
relevant state and federal constitutional law as applied to the bill. The note is not written for the
purpose of influencing whether the bill should become law, but is written to provide
information relevant to legislators' consideration of this bill. The note is not a substitute for the
judgment of the judiciary, which has authority to determine the constitutionality of a law in the
context of a specific case.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate
foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. The United States Supreme
Court has also found inherent federal authority to regulate immigration on the basis of federal
sovereignty and the power to engage in foreign affairs, this is sometimes referred to as the
"plenary power," which in more recent years has been made subject to certain constitutional
limits. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149
U.S. 698 (1893); Hernandez-Carrera v. Carlson, 547 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009). Federal
immigration law generally consists of both civil and criminal laws regarding admission of
foreign nationals, including the criteria and means for selection and the basis and procedure for
removal; citizenship by birth or by naturalization; criminal actions, such as transporting or
harboring an alien; and related laws such as access to public benefits, employment of
unauthorized aliens, issuance of driver licenses, etc. The key federal statute is the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA).
When a state regulates in the area of immigration, the issue arises of whether the state action is
preempted by federal law. To determine whether preemption exists, courts generally examine
whether the state regulation fails at least one of three tests: Is it preempted because of a
02-15-11 3:20 PM H.B. 116
- 33 -
conflict with federal law? Is it preempted because federal law has so occupied the field that
states are not allowed to regulate in the area? Is there an express preemption of state action?
The bill addresses areas also addressed by federal law such as accessing and disclosing
immigration information. Significantly, this bill provides a means by which a person may
employ an unauthorized alien in this state if the unauthorized alien is issued a state permit.
Federal law, in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324a, makes it unlawful to hire, recruit ,or refer for a fee, an
alien for employment in the United States knowing that the alien is an unauthorized alien.
The bill requires the executive branch to seek waivers that would authorize the state program,
but provides for implementation in the absence of such a waiver. Although federal law contains
measures to allow cooperation between the federal government and a state, the INA and related
regulations do not have an express process to provide a waiver that grants states authority to
related to state laws in areas that are governed by federal law. In the absence of an effective
waiver recognized as valid by the courts, under current law, there is a high probability that a
court would find that portions of this bill unconstitutional because they are preempted by
federal law as applied through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel"

Originally Posted by whyman

I do not think so. Rep. Wright is part of the system. The system protects its members.

"Dang! yeah that's not good!" In the real world they're suppose to be protecting us from government corruption. Damn! Utah brace yourselves for a flash flood! Keep pounding them with the cost of illegal aliens to the state of Utah is $453 million dollars and that's not counting the tax revenue lost because of all the tax payers in Utah out of work! We have to figure out a way to turn the law on itself somehow!

Compare HB 116 with itself and with 20 CFR 655.102. HB 116 is in violation of 20 CFR 655.102 and also contradicts itself.