Federal judge refuses to block most of Alabama immigration law

[LilOlLady]

Lil, when was the election that Obama got fired? Obama has not been fired he is still president and the election is not until 2012

They election is just a formality, Obama is already a loser. He has his notice that his job will be ending.

 

[High_Gravity]

which is illegal..and is why the US Appeals Court will block the law.

Maybe so but the families have already started leaving the state.

 

[Xchel]

and they will still come back..

here are things that were still blocked

But Blackburn blocked the following provisions from being enforced:
--One saying undocumented aliens in the state are not allowed to "knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public or private place, or perform work as an employee or independent."
--One banning the "concealing, harboring, transporting, etc., of unlawfully present aliens."
--One prohibiting employers from "taking of a state tax deduction for wages paid to an unauthorized alien."

and it has already been appealed to the US Appeals Court in Atlanta...and they will block most of the law..including the provision about school.

Alabama Immigration Law Ruling: Why it Matters, and What's Next - International Business Times

 

[LilOlLady]

which is illegal..and is why the US Appeals Court will block the law.

law or no law a million has already left the country. They run like the little cowards they are when the going get rough. Maybe those running back across the border will work to make things better in Mexico.

It not not illegal for state and local officials to assist in arrest and deportation of illegal aliens. Per, Federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.

Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes “...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws,” to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).FAIR: Local Immigration Enforcement


Like I said Sheriff Jose don't need no law. They law is already on his side.
We will win this war because the LAW is on our side..

 

[LilOlLady]

Give is up Xchel, your pig will never flyl

 

[Xchel]

Lil, those that left have left because of the economy..not because of the laws on immigration or any enforcement thereof...yes, checking someone in detention for a legal status is legal..no one is saying it isn't...but denying children the right to go to school is illegal...and the judge is a moron for letting that fly. Your clapping is premature..this is an ultra conservative right winger judge appointed by the Bush administration..it goes before the three judge panel in the Appeals court in Atlanta...and they aren't going to make you happy.

 

[Ernie S.]

The law does not prevent the children of illegals from going to school. It only tracks their status. Parents and their children can react to the law as they see fit, but if they do not register, they are in violation and will be dealt with.

 

[LilOlLady]

Lil, those that left have left because of the economy..not because of the laws on immigration or any enforcement thereof...yes, checking someone in detention for a legal status is legal..no one is saying it isn't...but denying children the right to go to school is illegal...and the judge is a moron for letting that fly. Your clapping is premature..this is an ultra conservative right winger judge appointed by the Bush administration..it goes before the three judge panel in the Appeals court in Atlanta...and they aren't going to make you happy.

I don't give a f*** why they leave as long as they leave. I will suffer the economy if it mean they will leave. Matter of fact I am willing to finance a few of their moves back to Mexico.

 

[LilOlLady]

THE LAW do not prevent them from going after businesses that hire them.

 

[dcbl]

um did you not read the Alabama law? It denies children the right to go to school in k-12 ...

The part about the university the judge blocked....again don't count your chickens before they are hatched...the US appeals court already has upheld the other injunctions against Arizona, Georgia, etc....I doubt seriously they are going to do an about face on this law.

Wrong. My wife is a schoolteacher here in AL - 15 years on the job. I'm very confident that I am more familiar with how the law affects Alabama schools than 99.99% of the rest of the members of this online community...

The law requires schools to check the immigration status of the kids, but does allow them to attend.

Illegals are leaving the state in droves

Happy reading - alabama immigration law requires schools - Google Search

 

[dcbl]

I live in Alabama and they are stopping kids from going to school if they are not born here, the schools have started asking for birth certificates, SSN's, etc if the child does not have those, he or she does not go to school. You are right for the most part the illegals are not going back to Mexico, they are just going to other states.

No. They are not.

Many parents that happen to be here illegally are voluntarily pulling their kids out. But children are not being blocked from attending.

The law DOES require schools to check the immigration status of students (which is a logistical nightmare & VERY unpopular with school officials); but DOES NOT bar the kids from attending school.

 

[dcbl]

Its getting the desired effect nevertheless, illegals have been leaving the state for weeks now.

More like months... I own an advertising company & I actually lost an account 3 or 4 months ago (a home remodeling company) because the guy can't keep up with the work he has & is losing over 1/2 of his workers.

 

[dcbl]

The law does not prevent the children of illegals from going to school. It only tracks their status. Parents and their children can react to the law as they see fit, but if they do not register, they are in violation and will be dealt with.

exactly correct

 

[Xchel]

tracking their status or reporting it is essentially the same in the court's eyes as refusing to allow them to attend school...read Plyler V Doe....they were clear that such activity is illegal.

 

[dcbl]

tracking their status or reporting it is essentially the same in the court's eyes as refusing to allow them to attend school...read Plyler V Doe....they were clear that such activity is illegal.

Whatever. The law specifically does NOT bar children from attending school. I am not familiar with that case, but if you are correct, then I am confident that SCOTUS will have an opportunity to re-visit the issue...

 

[Xchel]

No it isn't just whatever...it is a specific US Supreme Court decision...so while you may say it specifically does not..it is clearly having that effect since children, including US citizen children are being withdrawn from school in Alabama.

The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.
Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

 

[dcbl]

No it isn't just whatever...it is a specific US Supreme Court decision...so while you may say it specifically does not..it is clearly having that effect since children, including US citizen children are being withdrawn from school in Alabama.

The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.
Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Again - SCOTUS WILL have an opportunity to re-visit that issue. I am confident of that.

Alabama legislators took extreme care to ensure that the law was written in a way to pass constitutional muster.

Your quote DOES NOT address whether or not it is constitutional for schools to check the immigration status of students. It addresses whether or not the State can bar illegal children the right to ATTEND school. The Alabama law, as it is written AND is the law of the land (as of RIGHT NOW); CLEARLY does NOT bar ANY child from attending school.

Many illegals are VOLUNTARILY pulling their kids from school; but it IS NOT because their children are being barred.

So yeah - whatever...

 

[Xchel]

No it isn't just whatever...it is a specific US Supreme Court decision...so while you may say it specifically does not..it is clearly having that effect since children, including US citizen children are being withdrawn from school in Alabama.

The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.
Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Again - SCOTUS WILL have an opportunity to re-visit that issue. I am confident of that.

Alabama legislators took extreme care to ensure that the law was written in a way to pass constitutional muster.

Your quote DOES NOT address whether or not it is constitutional for schools to check the immigration status of students. It addresses whether or not the State can bar illegal children the right to ATTEND school. The Alabama law, as it is written AND is the law of the land (as of RIGHT NOW); CLEARLY does NOT bar ANY child from attending school.

Many illegals are VOLUNTARILY pulling their kids from school; but it IS NOT because their children are being barred.

So yeah - whatever...

If they took such great care why were several provisions still blocked by this conservative judge? I am quite confident that this will be blocked at the US Court of Appeals...and then it will of course go to the US Supreme Court and again they will say the same thing they did in Plyler V Doe.

 

[dcbl]

No it isn't just whatever...it is a specific US Supreme Court decision...so while you may say it specifically does not..it is clearly having that effect since children, including US citizen children are being withdrawn from school in Alabama.

Again - SCOTUS WILL have an opportunity to re-visit that issue. I am confident of that.

Alabama legislators took extreme care to ensure that the law was written in a way to pass constitutional muster.

Your quote DOES NOT address whether or not it is constitutional for schools to check the immigration status of students. It addresses whether or not the State can bar illegal children the right to ATTEND school. The Alabama law, as it is written AND is the law of the land (as of RIGHT NOW); CLEARLY does NOT bar ANY child from attending school.

Many illegals are VOLUNTARILY pulling their kids from school; but it IS NOT because their children are being barred.

So yeah - whatever...

If they took such great care why were several provisions still blocked by this conservative judge? I am quite confident that this will be blocked at the US Court of Appeals...and then it will of course go to the US Supreme Court and again they will say the same thing they did in Plyler V Doe.

I just read up on Plyer V Doe

You are correct - THAT portion of this law violates the law as it was decided in that case.

BUT, that case was decided in 1982. This is 2011. The make-up of the court is different.

SCOTUS, as it sits TODAY, may reverse the 1982 decision.

They very likely will have the opportunity...

 

[Xchel]

I doubt very seriously they will reverse. Let's look at the court makeup...

John G Roberts is a Bush nominee
Antonin Scalia is a Reagan nominee
Anthony Kennedy is a Reagan nominee centrist to liberal
Clarence Thomas is a Reagan nominee
Ruth Ginsburg is a Clinton nominee she is a liberal judge
Steven Breyer is a Clinton nominee he is a liberal judge
Samuel Alito is a Bush nominee
Sonya Sotomayor is an Obama nominee liberal judge
Elena Kegan is an Obama nominee liberal judge

Only Thomas and Scalia are extremely conservative. The other two are conservative but less so than Thomas and Scalia. It is very unlikely that Plyler V Doe would be overturned.