|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 1, 2011 9:49:29 GMT -6
from Vdare.com Democrat Decries “Highly Unusual” Federal Attacks On State Immigration EnforcementFri, Sept 30, 2011 By Donald A. Collins " In addition to not enforcing existing immigration laws, the Obama Administration has launched a full charge against embattled states seeking to protect themselves from massive illegal alien invasions.
If this doesn’t make your blood boil, you might as well emigrate! Of course where to, in our increasingly shattered world, is a good question.
Your constitutional rights, under Article IV, section 4, which requires the Federal government to protect the citizens from invasion, are under attack—as they have been throughout this president’s administration.
Now even the Open Borders Washington Post is having to report this anti-states policy on its front page: Justice targets laws like Arizona’s: US vs. States on immigration; Obama administration may file new suits,[ By Jerry Markon, September 29, 2011]...." (Also, see next post)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 1, 2011 9:59:01 GMT -6
From the Washington Post Obama administration widens challenges to state immigration lawsThurs, Sept 29, 2011 By Jerry Markon " The Obama administration is escalating its crackdown on tough immigration laws, with lawyers reviewing four new state statutes to determine whether the federal government will take the extraordinary step of challenging the measures in court.
Justice Department lawyers have sued Arizona and Alabama, where a federal judge on Wednesday allowed key parts of that state’s immigration law to take effect but blocked other provisions. Federal lawyers are talking to Utah officials about a third possible lawsuit and are considering legal challenges in Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina, according to court documents and government officials.
The level of federal intervention is highly unusual, legal experts said, especially because civil rights groups already have sued most of those states. Typically, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in other lawsuits filed against state statutes.
“I don’t recall any time in history that the Justice Department has so aggressively challenged state laws,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University Law School.
The legal skirmishing comes as immigration emerges as a defining issue in the presidential campaign and Hispanic voters play an increasingly influential role. Most Republican candidates are calling for a hard line on the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants — and criticizing Texas Gov. Rick Perry for some of his positions on the issue.
President Obama is staking out a position on the other side. He told a roundtable of Latino reporters Wednesday that Arizona’s immigration law created “a great danger that naturalized citizens, individuals with Latino surnames, potentially could be vulnerable to questioning. The laws could be potentially abused in ways that were not fair to Latino citizens.”
The Arizona law passed last year — requiring police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws — triggered a fierce national debate. A Justice Department lawsuit led federal courts to block that measure’s most contested provisions, but similar laws have been approved in recent months in Alabama, Utah, Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina. At least 17 other states have considered such measures this year.
Although Wednesday’s ruling in Alabama was something of a setback, the Justice Department and civil rights groups have been on a winning streak. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have obtained rulings temporarily blocking all or key parts of immigration laws in Utah, Georgia and Indiana....
Now, the administration is under pressure from some quarters to intervene in those states, as well as in South Carolina, where a new immigration law is set to take effect Jan. 1. Civil rights groups have been lobbying the executive branch, according to people familiar with the effort, and the ACLU is circulating an online petition calling for federal lawsuits.
Utah, by contrast, is urging the government to stay out of court. Mark Shurtleff, Utah’s Republican attorney general, has met with senior Justice officials, who he said are considering whether to join the civil rights lawsuit as a plaintiff.
“We believe our defense is much better if the Justice Department is not the one saying our law is superseded by federal law,” said Shurtleff, who added that Utah “worked very hard and carefully to make our law different from Arizona” so it is constitutional.
Conservatives have criticized the Obama administration for suing Arizona, and some legal observers said they detect political motives in the administration’s additional legal steps. The White House has been trying to rekindle excitement among Hispanic voters, many of whom have been disappointed over Obama’s immigration policies....
Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said lawyers are reviewing the Utah, Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina laws and the “legal principles” established in the Arizona case.
“Based on that review and applying those principles, the United States will decide whether and when to bring suit challenging particular state laws,” Hinojosa said.
Hovering over the debate is the possible involvement of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in April that the most contested parts of Arizona’s immigration law will remain blocked from taking effect, and the high court could decide to hear the case this term. That would mean a decision before the 2012 presidential election.
“My guess is that they will take it,” said Jonathan Benner, a Washington lawyer who has argued numerous cases involving federal-state conflicts. “This is the kind of case that is most interesting to the Supreme Court.”
The other state statutes include a range of provisions, such as authorizing police to question people’s immigration status in certain circumstances, limiting the ability of immigrants to use some forms of identification and criminalizing the harboring of illegal immigrants....
The Justice Department and a coalition of civil rights groups sued over the [Alabama] law, which requires public school officials to determine citizenship by seeking children’s birth certificates. Civil rights advocates say that will keep some children out of school because their parents will fear being deported.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn allowed that provision to take effect, along with other elements of the law, until she can issue a final ruling. But she temporarily blocked other provisions, including those making it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work or to transport or harbor illegal immigrants.
Alabama lawyers have backed the law’s constitutionality, and Gov. Robert Bentley (R) on Wednesday called it “the strongest immigration law in the country.” Other states also have defended their laws.
But some judges have been highly critical. In Indiana, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in June blocked the two most contested parts of that state’s law. The provisions would authorize warrantless arrests of illegal immigrants in certain circumstances and make it a crime to accept an identification card used by many immigrants....
Indiana officials are defending their law, and Greg Zoeller (R), the state’s attorney general, said the judge’s ruling “can be seen as an indictment of the federal government on their failure to enact and enforce immigration policy.”"
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Oct 5, 2011 11:51:30 GMT -6
Politics matter
Immigration helped Romney and hurt Perry recently among Republicans. Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain now rivals and/or surpasses Perry in the ever changing, fickled Republican popularity polls.
Primaries now appear likely to be starting in January.
Immigration may shape the Primaries outcomes.
|
|