Alabama Immigration Law Not Getting Support From Federal Government

[delta22]

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, ASSOCIATED PRESS

(AP) WASHINGTON -- The government hasn't offered to help Alabama put in place a strict immigration law that the Obama administration is challenging in court, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.

The administration has sued to block the law, which is considered the toughest state immigration measure in the country.

"We have been working the Department of Justice in its challenge to that law," Napolitano told the House Judiciary Committee.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta this month temporarily blocked a part of the law that required public schools to check the immigration status of students. But the court did not bar law enforcement officials from detaining people suspected of being in the country without proper documentation.

A final ruling in the case is not expected for several months.

Alabama Republicans have argued that the law, passed this year by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Gov. Robert Bentley, was necessary to protect the jobs of legal residents.

The Obama administration, which also is challenging a similar law in Arizona, has argued that enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility.

Advocates against the strict state law have argued that giving immigration enforcement power to local authorities will lead to racial profiling of immigrants, both documented and undocumented.

Napolitano said that while it is too soon to know what impact the new law will have, such worries "should be a real a real concern."

Similar laws have been passed in Utah, Georgia, South Carolina and Indiana. Civil rights groups have sued to block them.

[BrokeNoMore]

Similar laws have been passed in Utah, Georgia, South Carolina and Indiana. Civil rights groups have sued to block them.

Illegals should have no civil rights. At least they should not in this country. They should only have human rights for as long as it takes to send them back to where they belong.

[bamagirl]

What in the world is wrong with people?!? It has always been against the law to live here illegally...all Alabama is doing is enforcing it now. I have lost two friends because of this...they are fighting for the illegals 'rights' and I just do not understand what 'rights' they are suppose to have, they aren't even suppose to be here for crying out loud!!

Illegals should have no civil rights. At least they should not in this country. They should only have human rights for as long as it takes to send them back to where they belong.

EXACTLY!

[DinarMillionaire]

The so called "Civil Rights" groups in America are not for Americans. They try to protect ILLEGALS "rights" more so than AMERICANS rights. They are just a bunch of Communist/Globalist helping in the destruction of America.

Who gave "Illeagals" rights? They should have none here.

Edited December 4, 2011 by DinarMillionaire

[Anti This Anti That]

The so called "Civil Rights" groups in America are not for Americans. They try to protect ILLEGALS "rights" more so than AMERICANS rights. They are just a bunch of Communist/Globalist helping in the destruction of America.

Who gave "Illeagals" rights? They should have none here.

They are communist trying to destroy America from within. ACLU, ADL, SPLC, Illegal Obama regime, Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice, etc, are all controlled by communist, and that is a fact. What so-called leader would go against the wishes of the American people to allow illegals to get away with breaking the law, and on top of that give them benefits they are not entitled to. People better get these people out of their political offices, and the judicial system.

[Weapon X]

I found this while doing some research, and it fits right into what is being said here.

Do not let the fact that the term "illegal aliens" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution lead you to believe that its rights and freedoms do not apply to them. The courts have held otherwise.

Often described as a "living document," the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

It's All About Equal Protection

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

Source

Edited December 4, 2011 by Weapon X

[Anti This Anti That]

I found this while doing some research, and it fits right into what is being said here.

Source

The US Supreme court is a part of the communist problem. These nit wits are not suppose to interpret laws, they are suppose to make sure they are enforced. Illegals are not entitiled to American benefits because they never paid into the system. The fact of the matter they all should be deported along with all the groups helping them.

I found this while doing some research, and it fits right into what is being said here.

Source

If I told you who the US Constitution really applied to, they would ban me, but that Constitution does not apply to illegals, and any lawyer, or supreme court that states it does is a liar. Who founded America? What does posterity mean? Look it up and see the real truth.

[Photochic]

This is just an extremely small part of a Rush Limbaugh and a caller conversation, but I found it VERY interesting:

[CALLER: I was trying to think back to the debates with McCain and Obama, and I was like, did he just get a pass on these questions or am I just not remembering, or does he have a position on these or was he just voting "present"?

RUSH: Well, it's an excellent question. I know what Obama's position on immigration is, but I can't tell you the last time he stated it. But it's obvious what it is if you watch how he sues states that want to deal with open borders. If you watch who his friends are, I know that he wants full and total amnesty. And I think once he's reelected, if he gets a second term, all bets are off. There's no more accountability. He doesn't have to worry about being reelected. He doesn't have to worry about a damn thing, so I think in the second term is where he's holding out a lot of things. Right now on practically every position Obama takes - like he pardoned the turkey today. I don't think Obama respects our Thanksgiving tradition. I think he thinks it's all a bunch of bunk.

When he talks about the American dream and working hard and you'll be rewarded, he doesn't believe that. He thinks that's a myth. I think Obama has to disguise his left-wing extremism. But when he's reelected, if he's reelected, there's not gonna be any need for it. He doesn't care about the Democrat Party. We know that. So in a second term, I think - you know, Chris Matthews asked the other day, "We don't know what he's gonna do the second term, what's he gonna do?" He can't tell us, which I said to Matthews, he cannot afford to tell anybody what he's gonna do in a second term or he would not get reelected, but, for example, when it comes to immigration, if he is reelected, he is going to punish his enemies and La Raza's enemies with full and total amnesty. He's already taking steps that equate to backdoor amnesty.]

[wicked93gs]

You know...I used to be for laws like this...but now I see it as an infringement on civil liberties...this isnt about the immigrants, its about the citizens that could be mistaken for immigrants...if you dont know what I mean, just you tube some"open carry" videos...these are people openly carrying a firearm, which is a 2nd amendment right....I think these guys do it more to provoke police than anything else, but the point is the police invariably ask to see their ID...which is an infringement of rights, if you are abiding by the law while carrying a non-concealed weapon they don't have the right to ask you for your ID....openly carrying is NOT reasonable cause...this type of law is the same thing. The fact is the constitution is not only for citizens, it covers ANYONE in this country....border security is a simple matter to solve...you BUILD A 40 foot TALL WALL along the entire mexican border....proposals to do so are usually quoted at about $400 million at the upper limit...much less than we spend over the years trying to patrol the entire thing and then having to deport the ones that make it later...in the long run it is far cheaper to build this wall....but neither republicans or democrats really want it....democrats want their votes and rebublicans want their labor

[Anti This Anti That]

You know...I used to be for laws like this...but now I see it as an infringement on civil liberties...this isnt about the immigrants, its about the citizens that could be mistaken for immigrants...if you dont know what I mean, just you tube some"open carry" videos...these are people openly carrying a firearm, which is a 2nd amendment right....I think these guys do it more to provoke police than anything else, but the point is the police invariably ask to see their ID...which is an infringement of rights, if you are abiding by the law while carrying a non-concealed weapon they don't have the right to ask you for your ID....openly carrying is NOT reasonable cause...this type of law is the same thing. The fact is the constitution is not only for citizens, it covers ANYONE in this country....border security is a simple matter to solve...you BUILD A 40 foot TALL WALL along the entire mexican border....proposals to do so are usually quoted at about $400 million at the upper limit...much less than we spend over the years trying to patrol the entire thing and then having to deport the ones that make it later...in the long run it is far cheaper to build this wall....but neither republicans or democrats really want it....democrats want their votes and rebublicans want their labor

Does not cover illegals, that is a lie.