Law makes babies cry

[Kaos]

Federal preemption is unconstitutional.

[AWK]

The issue of constitutionality in this particular case doesn't really have much to do with protected classes.  And no, it doesn't take hours to explain the reasoning as to why portions of this law may be unconstitutional.

First, it should be noted that this law includes a severability provision, stating that “If any part of this act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, that declaration shall not affect the part which remains.”  So if the only section found to be unconstitutional is the one which prevents employers from claiming wages paid to illegals as deductible, then all other sections can still be validly enforced.

There are a variety of sections that have been challenged for a variety of reasons; it's not as simple as stating that the law as a whole has been challenged for only one constitutional reason, such as the underlying effects.

The majority of the claims as to constitutionality are based upon federal preemption.  As an example, Section 13 of the law creates an Alabama-specific harboring scheme that “removes any federal discretion and impermissibly places the entire operation – from arrest to incarceration – squarely in the State’s purview.” (Cited from Judge Blackburn's memorandum opinion entered on September 28).

The opinion also found that sections 11(a), 13, 16, and 17 would likely be deemed unconstitutional, based upon the fact that they preempt the federal government by placing immigration operations within the State's purview.

I think people know that this is a law against illegal immigrants, and I think they immediately jump to conclusions about protected classes when the constitutionality of such a law is brought into question.  But, in actuality, the majority of the claims which are being considered as having merit are based upon federal preemption.

First, never said it was the only reason it was being challenged.  Just said this is the reason why I think it will be found unconstitutional. Second, I said I think the due process issue is more important than the protected class. There are private groups and individuals that filed suit as well.  You are referencing only the Justice Department's suit. 

[GH2001]

Is it Constitutional for the Federal Gov't NOT to "uphold the law" the last 20 years of this shit happening and spiraling out of control? No one was crying unconstitutional then when the law wasn't being "upheld" and was being ignored. If that had not happened, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Vandy Vol]

First, never said it was the only reason it was being challenged.  Just said this is the reason why I think it will be found unconstitutional. Second, I said I think the due process issue is more important than the protected class. There are private groups and individuals that filed suit as well.  You are referencing only the Justice Department's suit.

I only cited to the opinion regarding the claims from the U.S., but if you've read or kept up with the private claims, the same premise still stands: federal preemption is the focus.  The opinion by Judge Blackburn for the private suit dismissed most of the non-preemption claims as unlikely to succeed.

Virtually every private claim features a challenge to the law based upon federal preemption.  Yes, several of them include other claims, ranging from the Confrontation Clause (dismissed as not likely to succeed) to the First Amendment (dismissed due to the fact that the code section in question was already deemed likely to be unconstitutional based upon preemption).

But most of the claims that were not preemption claims were dismissed as unlikely to succeed, or not ripe for review.  Claims involving searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment can not be carried forth until the law is applied and improper searches occur; you can't judge whether a statute will be applied improperly based upon its face alone.

The only non-preemption claim I can find that the court considered worthwhile was a Compulsory Process claim.  Essentially, one section of this law dictates that courts can only consider the federal government's verification when determining if an alien is lawfully present.  This effectively prevents the defendant from introducing anything in his own defense.

Other than that, the primary point of contention is federal preemption.  I only bring this up because there seems to be a lot of misguided conversations about whether illegal immigrants have constitutional rights, whether racial profiling is unconstitutional, etc.  Ultimately, all of this is moot, as it has either already been dismissed by Judge Blackburn as not having a likelihood of success on the merits, or it was never even brought up in the lawsuits in the first place.  I just think people are jumping the gun and making assumptions about what this case is focusing upon.

[AWK]

I only cited to the opinion regarding the claims from the U.S., but if you've read or kept up with the private claims, the same premise still stands: federal preemption is the focus.  The opinion by Judge Blackburn for the private suit dismissed most of the non-preemption claims as unlikely to succeed.

Virtually every private claim features a challenge to the law based upon federal preemption.  Yes, several of them include other claims, ranging from the Confrontation Clause (dismissed as not likely to succeed) to the First Amendment (dismissed due to the fact that the code section in question was already deemed likely to be unconstitutional based upon preemption).

But most of the claims that were not preemption claims were dismissed as unlikely to succeed, or not ripe for review.  Claims involving searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment can not be carried forth until the law is applied and improper searches occur; you can't judge whether a statute will be applied improperly based upon its face alone.

The only non-preemption claim I can find that the court considered worthwhile was a Compulsory Process claim.  Essentially, one section of this law dictates that courts can only consider the federal government's verification when determining if an alien is lawfully present.  This effectively prevents the defendant from introducing anything in his own defense.

Other than that, the primary point of contention is federal preemption.  I only bring this up because there seems to be a lot of misguided conversations about whether illegal immigrants have constitutional rights, whether racial profiling is unconstitutional, etc.  Ultimately, all of this is moot, as it has either already been dismissed by Judge Blackburn as not having a likelihood of success on the merits, or it was never even brought up in the lawsuits in the first place.  I just think people are jumping the gun and making assumptions about what this case is focusing upon.

Just like in Roe v. Wade, it will take a certain situation with a private suit/citizen to hit the Supreme Court.  But like I said, it will be the due process issues that make it unconstitutional.  The application of the law.

[Kaos]

Due process is for citizens, not invaders. 

The law should be changed to treat illegals as enemies in war.

[Vandy Vol]

Due process is for citizens, not invaders. 

If that's your personal stance on how things should be, then have at it.

But if that's an attempt to state that due process rights aren't given to non-citizens, then it's an incorrect statement.

The Fourteenth Amendment insures that due process rights are given to "any person."  And there's no reason to infer that "person" can only refer to "citizen," because the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits states from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."

This has been interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court to mean that non-citizens ("persons") have due process and equal protection rights.  Examples?

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

In 2008, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Boumediene v. Bush which held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen.

I don't know who started the nonsensical myth that non-citizens don't have due process rights, but even politicians publicly spout this type of false crap without having any knowledge of constitutional interpretation or common law history.

[Vandy Vol]

Just like in Roe v. Wade, it will take a certain situation with a private suit/citizen to hit the Supreme Court.  But like I said, it will be the due process issues that make it unconstitutional.  The application of the law.

Eventually, maybe.  But the law was enjoined prior to its effective date of September 1, so no one has been adversely affected by the application of the law yet.  And the sections currently being challenged will likely be found unconstitutional on preemption grounds, which will strike those sections from the law.

Unless there are other unchallenged sections which could affect someone's due process rights, and unless those unchallenged sections are eventually upheld and enforced, then there won't be a successful due process claim.

Also, if officers are trained to ask for identification only upon reasonable suspicion of a crime other than the crimes outlined in this immigration law, then there won't be any successful due process claims.

But, of course, if officers begin detaining people because they "look" illegal, and for no other reason whatsoever, then you've got a host of potential constitutional rights violations, including interference with due process rights.

[AWK]

Eventually, maybe.  But the law was enjoined prior to its effective date of September 1, so no one has been adversely affected by the application of the law yet.  And the sections currently being challenged will likely be found unconstitutional on preemption grounds, which will strike those sections from the law.

Unless there are other unchallenged sections which could affect someone's due process rights, and unless those unchallenged sections are eventually upheld and enforced, then there won't be a successful due process claim.

Also, if officers are trained to ask for identification only upon reasonable suspicion of a crime other than the crimes outlined in this immigration law, then there won't be any successful due process claims.

But, of course, if officers begin detaining people because they "look" illegal, and for no other reason whatsoever, then you've got a host of potential constitutional rights violations, including interference with due process rights.

If, shit, when.

[Kaos]

If that's your personal stance on how things should be, then have at it.

But if that's an attempt to state that due process rights aren't given to non-citizens, then it's an incorrect statement.

The Fourteenth Amendment insures that due process rights are given to "any person."  And there's no reason to infer that "person" can only refer to "citizen," because the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits states from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."

This has been interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court to mean that non-citizens ("persons") have due process and equal protection rights.  Examples?

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

In 2008, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Boumediene v. Bush which held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen.

I don't know who started the nonsensical myth that non-citizens don't have due process rights, but even politicians publicly spout this type of false crap without having any knowledge of constitutional interpretation or common law history.

^
This is why lawyers suck. 

They don't know what illegal means.

[RWS]

So far, it seems that the new law is working without having to be enforced.

^^ This.

Token mentioned this in another post, and I agree with both of you. I think the purpose of this law is two-pronged. The first is just a bluff to make any illegals leave, and the second is to put the federal government on notice that if they refuse to act, the states will.

At our department, we report anybody in our jail that is suspected of being illegal to ICE. We've always done that since there has been a means to do so. We have done this with hispanics, Czech, etc. If ICE can't find anything on that person, they issue a detainer, and then come to interview them. If ICE determines that the person is here illegally, they take that person. Two years ago, they would be taken to New Orleans, sent to a deportation hearing, and would be out of the country within a month or two. For the past year or so, they are sent to New Orleans, given a court date, post a bond, and then they are released.

I just don't see what the big problem is with making sure somebody is in our country legally. I don't care what color their skin is, or what language they speak. As long as you go through the proper authority to be here, then more power to you. It's all fun and games until a terrorist sneaks into the country and blows something up. I know that's one extreme end of the spectrum, but the point stands.

[DnATL]

We need to ignore the fact that for every student enrolled, it costs the state $10k per year just to fund that student in the classroom.

And ignore the fact that at my school, we have 76 (as of the first week of school) illegal immigrant children in our school. 

Since education is depleting in this country, I'll do the math for you - that's about $76,000  just at my school alone.  $76k that isn't being repaid through taxes. 

You teach language, not math, right?

[GH2001]

You teach language, not math, right?

So carry 1, add the it up top, add to the 7, subtract 2, add 0...yep, he teaches english.

[Tiger Wench]

Just to stoke the fire a bit, it's not just Mexican brown skinned people, although they are still the majority crossing over.  India?  Phililipines?  (Sani's kids coming home?) Very interesting.  Per the 2009 Dept of Homeland Strip Searches:

Mexico continued to be the leading source of unauthorized immigration to the United States. There were 6.7 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in 2009, representing 62 percent of the unauthorized population. The next
leading source countries for unauthorized immigrants in 2009 were El Salvador (530,000), Guatemala (480,000), Honduras (320,000), and the Philippines (270,000). The ten leading countries of origin represented 85 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2009.

Between 2000 and 2009, the Mexican-born unauthorized immigrant population increased 2.0 million or 42 percent. The greatest percentage increases occurred among unauthorized immigrants from Honduras (95 percent), Guatemala (65 percent), and India (64 percent).

[Snaggletiger]

Curious.  Where do they come up with those numbers?  If the people are here illegally, are they going to fill out a census?  Are they speaking up..."Jes, I am Jose Santore an Jes, I am here illegally". 

"Oh an jus so your count weel be accurate, I am from Guatemala". 

[Tiger Wench]

Curious.  Where do they come up with those numbers?  If the people are here illegally, are they going to fill out a census?  Are they speaking up..."Jes, I am Jose Santore an Jes, I am here illegally". 

"Oh an jus so your count weel be accurate, I am from Guatemala".

Extrapolated out from the ones they bust trying to cross. Random sampling, I suppose.

[Vandy Vol]

Just to stoke the fire a bit, it's not just Mexican brown skinned people, although they are still the majority crossing over.  India?  Phililipines?  (Sani's kids coming home?) Very interesting.  Per the 2009 Dept of Homeland Strip Searches:

You'd be surprised about how many "Mexicans" aren't from Mexico.  I worked for a bank that was the first in Alabama to develop products for customers who spoke Spanish.

Now, maybe Mexican immigrants tend not to have bank accounts or be paid by checks that must be cashed at a bank, but the majority of Hispanic customers were not Mexican.  I saw people from Guatemala, Peru, Costa Rica, the Phillipines, etc.  Sure, some from Mexico, but not nearly as many as I thought I'd see based upon popular stereotypes and government reports.

Not that it matters much, but interesting nonetheless.

[JR4AU]

 

Congratulations to landlords for making tenants prove they are here legally.  Congratulations to Alabama Power for demanding that customers not be illegals.

Believe it or not, this type thing is a shitload better than any law.

[JR4AU]

Illiterate...literate...in their own country. 

I'll tell you what we really need.  We need to be extra-sensitive to these illegal immigrants and just ignore the fact that American citizens' education is depleting because we can no longer afford it.

I'll tell you what we really need.  We need to keep telling the kids in Algebra that they have to share a textbook with another student because the county is literally too bottomed out to buy new ones.  We need to tell teachers who have 35 kids in a room that there's no money to hire new teachers.

We need to ignore the fact that for every student enrolled, it costs the state $10k per year just to fund that student in the classroom.

And ignore the fact that at my school, we have 76 (as of the first week of school) illegal immigrant children in our school. 

Since education is depleting in this country, I'll do the math for you - that's about $76,000  just at my school alone.  $76k that isn't being repaid through taxes. 

Sorry, but my sensitivity is shot.  At this point, our country has to right the wrong it's committed to itself.  We can't waste a generation of our own children just because we don't want to hurt an illegal immigrant's feelings.

More misconception offered to support the law.  Even illegals pay taxes.  They pay property tax if they by property, or through rent, and paying sales tax like the rest of the world.  Despite the misconception that most are paid in cash under the table, having had a father and brother in the construction business, this isn't true as well.  Are some?  Yes, but just as many "Americans" are too.  What the majority of them don't do is file tax returns, or draw government checks.  If they live in the school district, most are paying their way via taxes.

[Townhallsavoy]

More misconception offered to support the law.  Even illegals pay taxes.  They pay property tax if they by property, or through rent, and paying sales tax like the rest of the world.  Despite the misconception that most are paid in cash under the table, having had a father and brother in the construction business, this isn't true as well.  Are some?  Yes, but just as many "Americans" are too.  What the majority of them don't do is file tax returns, or draw government checks.  If they live in the school district, most are paying their way via taxes.

Explain the discrepancy between the number of students registering for school and the amount of tax dollars available for each school. 

Because we're being told that the explanation for lack of funding is the exorbitant amount of illegal immigrants being unaccounted for during registration. 

So maybe it isn't taxes.  Maybe the problem is that we don't know these kids are even in the area until they show up on the first, second, third, fourth day of school.  Or the third week.  Or whenever they decide to show up. 

And then suddenly they do show up needing the same amount of money the other kids in the classroom do. 

I also should have edited my post.  We don't have 76 known illegals in our school.  The number is right now at 221.