Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Harsh Immigration Laws Threaten "Humanitarian Crisis" in Alabama, Prompting Latinos t

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • federale86
    replied
    Hudson you are s.tupid. The Supreme Court has already ruled that States may enforce immigration laws:

    Hudson is the d.umbest person in the world. Mostly because all she knows is what No Brain Brit tells her.

    Leave a comment:


  • Don Fernandez
    replied
    No cleavage = No sense. Ok, you can delete this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
    S.tupid No Brain Brit. The supremacy clause refers to the supremacy of the Federal government in areas reserved to the Federal government. It does not refer to the authority of the Supreme Court.

    Of course, the 10th Amendment severely restricts Federal authority.

    But in any event there is no restriction on the States authority to enforce Federal law by detaining illegal aliens and handing them over to the Federal government.

    But your real goal is to have the Federal government not enforce the law, which is an impeachable offense for Barak Hussein Obama. He took an oath to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully executed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Good god Fed, you are stupid. Everything you said will get an utter failure in the most conservative of law schools. For instnace, the SSupremecy clause refers to the Supremecy of the Constitution, including the judicial process. The Tenth amendment states that certain state rights are reserved for the states. Those rights are already listed in the Constitution, Article 4. And states are limited that their laws cannot exceed federal law. It is absolutely clear that immigration is solely reserved for the Federal govenment and in limited cases, the states may coordinate their activities with federal agents. But federal agents have the the jurisdiction. Nothing you have posted is true and accurate, just whimsical nonsense as usual. You are not only stupid, but a coward and a traitor and should be dealt with like any other traitor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    Oh blah blah fedNUT. Now you sound like davdah. You just can't admit when you are wrong can you?

    You still haven't directly answered why doesn't the AL law bar illegal immigrant kids from enrolling in public schools. After all, according to you the States have a right to make their own laws. So why didn't they?

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    S.tupid No Brain Brit. The supremacy clause refers to the supremacy of the Federal government in areas reserved to the Federal government. It does not refer to the authority of the Supreme Court.

    Of course, the 10th Amendment severely restricts Federal authority.

    But in any event there is no restriction on the States authority to enforce Federal law by detaining illegal aliens and handing them over to the Federal government.

    But your real goal is to have the Federal government not enforce the law, which is an impeachable offense for Barak Hussein Obama. He took an oath to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully executed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    Try as we might Hudson, 'ol fedNUT just doesn't get it. We might as well be talking to one of these..

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    Fednut,
    The only stupidity that I see is yours. YOu know nothing of the Constittuional process, much less the Constittuion. A decision by the Supreme Court, under the Supremcy clause, is in and of itself, a legal, binding enactment equal to and superior to a legislative act of Congress. And it does not matter what the opinion of any judicial individual whether they are the Chief Justice or any attorney, but only what the court ruling says. That is how a nation of laws is supposed to be governmed.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Since the Chief Justice has said publically that Plyer was decided incorrectly, then overturning Plyer is very likely.

    And you are so s.tupid that you don't know the difference between an Act of Congress and a Supreme Court decision.

    Probably because you want to live in a kritarchy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    Now the Feds want school data from AL. See what good "going it alone" has done for AL? You'd think with AL's past history on civil rights battles they'd have learnt not to attract the Feds interest. Another unintended consequence of this ill-conceived law.

    Alabama's attorney general balks at giving feds school data

    Alabama's attorney general questioned Wednesday whether the federal government has the legal right to ask for data from school districts in the state, which has recently passed controversial legislation intended to reduce illegal immigration.

    In a letter sent Wednesday, Attorney General Luther Strange said he was "perplexed and troubled" about a request from the Justice Department for information about Alabama's schools.

    The Justice Department issued the letter Tuesday to Alabama school districts to ensure they are complying with federal law, which declares that a child may not be denied equal access to schools based on his or her immigration status.

    CNN.com

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
    No Brain Brit, you are the same moron who said that SCOTUS will overturn Arizona's EVerify law. LOL, you got that one wrong, as you are wrong on the various State statutes.

    And, No Brain Brit, one of the purposes of the Alabama law is to collect the statistics regarding illegal alien enrollment in schools so as to challenge the previous ruling on illegal alien students.

    A d.ummy like you would not know that Plyer was decided without reference to impact on the States and the cost.

    Establishing the cost to taxpayers will be an important part of the challenge to Plyer.

    Poor No Brain Brit, he/she/it doesn't know anything other than talking points his boyfriend Olde moron gives him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Dear Barachon,
    Using children to go after the parents is a violation of the law on numerous scales whether the child is a USC, a legal resident, or an illegal alien. And Supreme court decisions are not based on determining costs to the states, it is based on something written on parchment called the Constitution. As such, your pathetic attempt and your constant display at ignorance only proves the point that the country is better off without you. Go home and leanr something for once instead of being labeled as a fool and a drunkard on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    Stop trying to change the subject fedNUT. YOU made the statement that a SCOTUS decision is not the Law of the Land. WRONG. It is. End of story.

    I added the Plyer v. Doe decision to illustrate since 1982 illegal immigrant kids cannot be barred from receiving a public education.

    If you don't like that decision then you are free to lobby your Congressperson and get that law changed. Good luck in doing that. It would likely need an Amendment to the Constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    No Brain Brit, you are the same moron who said that SCOTUS will overturn Arizona's EVerify law. LOL, you got that one wrong, as you are wrong on the various State statutes.

    And, No Brain Brit, one of the purposes of the Alabama law is to collect the statistics regarding illegal alien enrollment in schools so as to challenge the previous ruling on illegal alien students.

    A d.ummy like you would not know that Plyer was decided without reference to impact on the States and the cost.

    Establishing the cost to taxpayers will be an important part of the challenge to Plyer.

    Poor No Brain Brit, he/she/it doesn't know anything other than talking points his boyfriend Olde moron gives him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    When the SCOTUS rules on the AZ & AL laws assuming they accept the task and find in favor of the Federal Government position, which is most likely based on past rulings, will these rogue States then accept it and shutup or will they like fedNUT continue to erroneously believe a SCOTUS ruling is not the Law of the Land?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SunDevilUSA:
    With all due respect, Brit, your argument is absurd.

    States are sovereign entities, within the legal limits of their sovereignty, and have the right to enact laws...whether said laws relate to immigration or any other subject.

    All laws enacted by a state are subject to oversight by the courts, as are all laws passed by the federal government...and, of course, they must pass Constitutional scrutiny.

    The Federal District Courts have largely upheld the recent immigration-related laws in both Arizona and Alabama...and their ultimate fate will be decided by the Supreme Court in due course.

    It is wishful thinking (or not thinking) on the part of apologists for illegal aliens and their hangers-on to assert that such laws are inherently unconstitutional. Quite clearly, the Federal District Courts have not, so far, found them to be largely unconstitutional...and the Supreme Court has yet to render its verdicts.

    Until the Supreme Court has rendered its decisions, all we have are apologists for lawbreakers pretending to be Constitutional scholars...and most of them couldn't even spell scholar! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    To some degree yes, to the rest no. States cannot exceed federal law, states cannot enter into treaties, and states cannot form their own armies seperate from the national army. With immigration, only the federal district court in Alabama has given the anti immigration groups some hope, but the remaining district courts and the court of appeals have decided otherwise. Whether it is the Farmers Branch, TX or the Hezlett, PA rulings, or the controversial sections within SB 1070, the federal court has ruled these unconstitutional, generally.

    Furthermore, not allowing illegals to morry isn't discouraging the tide of illegal immigrants SunDevil. Marriage, whether by legal resident or illegal resident does not provide one right or guarantee under the Constitution. It is a useless gesture to placate the stupidity of the "law and order" crowd.

    Leave a comment:


  • SunDevilUSA
    replied
    With all due respect, Brit, your argument is absurd.

    States are sovereign entities, within the legal limits of their sovereignty, and have the right to enact laws...whether said laws relate to immigration or any other subject.

    All laws enacted by a state are subject to oversight by the courts, as are all laws passed by the federal government...and, of course, they must pass Constitutional scrutiny.

    The Federal District Courts have largely upheld the recent immigration-related laws in both Arizona and Alabama...and their ultimate fate will be decided by the Supreme Court in due course.

    It is wishful thinking (or not thinking) on the part of apologists for illegal aliens and their hangers-on to assert that such laws are inherently unconstitutional. Quite clearly, the Federal District Courts have not, so far, found them to be largely unconstitutional...and the Supreme Court has yet to render its verdicts.

    Until the Supreme Court has rendered its decisions, all we have are apologists for lawbreakers pretending to be Constitutional scholars...and most of them couldn't even spell scholar!

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X