Thread: Actual Brief filed, U.S v. Alabama, Original Complaint

http://media.al.com/bn/other/U.S.%20Jus ... awsuit.pdf

Interesting. Still reading and analyzing it.

18. The Constituion affords the President of the United States the Authority to " take care that the laws be faithfully executed." U.S.Const., art II ( sed) 3.

Without citing all the relevant cases and codes cited in brief,,, they acknowledge that all aliens are required to register , and not doing so within the codes and laws cited subjects said alien to penalties including incarceration. The argument seems to be , that during the time allowed after registration and before issuance of proper documentation, said alien may not posses the required documents and therefore under this law be unduly subjected to unwarranted criminal actions.

35. States in part " ,,,,, despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest." This is where Texas lost on Plyler v. Doe. No legitimate state interest was shown. Good place to attack this brief showing negative criminal and economic impact on the State.

While admitting most of the provisions within the Alabama law are in fact Constitutional on their face , and in fact violations under federal law. The claim is made that federal law preempts state law and enforcement would place an undue burden on the federal government by overloading the system with illegal aliens. In effect Alabama law would be far too effective and the federal government would not have the capacity to keep up with the volume of illegals identified. In addition they seem to claim Foreign policy considerations may be compromised. There are many other flaws and it is laughable the federal government would in effect claim some illegals waiting for proper identification would be harmed, since their papers are " IN the mail.".

If the removal of unauthorized aliens is only part of federal immigration policy, that doesn't mean that local authorities cannot cooperate with the enforcement of that portion---particularly when they turn over accurately identified persons to the federal immigration authorities. Local law enforcement cooperates in other federal law and I don't see anything in the US Constitution that says states cannot do so with immigration laws.

To be realistic, because of all of the protections and benefits that our system affords to illegals---many of which would have been utterly incomprehensible in our earlier days--- a court shouldn't render only a dry technical reading. The bottom line is that we have to be attuned to reality---and the reality is that there are so many magnets existng in these times to entice people to come into the US by any means available. And that simply is not a sustainable concept.