• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

G

Gargantuan

Federal judge grants request to block parts of Georgia immigration law from taking effect - The Washington Post

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Monday blocked parts of Georgia’s law cracking down on illegal immigration from taking effect until a legal challenge is resolved.
Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can’t provide proper identification.
Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.
Click to expand...

As I predicted, these state laws that try to let state/local officers enforce federal law will be shot down. Slowly but surely...
 
The more that try the better. Feds can't block the entire country. No Dem votes in that. My state will be the first to hit the SCOTUS. We're ready. If all the states that aren't openly sanctuary states will take a stand, maybe we can force these clowns to deal with the border issues.
 
It's really not constitutional though... federal law = enforced by federal government. INA 287g would apply if the local/state had written permission from the federal government, then were trained accordingly by ICE, but since the states are not doing that, this is going to get thrown out. That is precisely the reason this law was blocked.
 
MrVicchio said:
This is gonna hit SCOTUS, and chances are the laws will be held as Constitutional.. and there is nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. The Feds can occupy the field. They can pass immigration reform which would improve the case that the states are not empowered to act on immigration.
 
First of all, the law wasn't shot down. The court simply noted that these questions are currently making their way to the USSC and it's best to wait to charge people until after the USSC has made it's ruling. Or not if the USSC shoots it down.

The USSC is unlikely to do that.
 
The Feds need to get out of the way if they refuse to enforce the laws, and let the states do it. Imagine a USA without illegals.. 30% less in prison, reduction in crime, the savings in welfare ALONE could cover all the uninsured Americans without spending one more cent on Oblamacare.. jobs.. remember jobs?? In Georgia they pay illegals $100 a day to pick Vidalia onions. Lots of unemployed Americans will pick onions for $100 a day rather than be on the gov't dole. If some states choose to keep this national nightmare going-- let them. We don't want to in AZ. But sanctuary states really should not whine for Fed money if they keep enabling the problem.
 
I'm really curious to see if Republicans do any better. The border has been unsecured for at least thirty years under both Democrats and Republicans. I used to think it was because Republicans were giving their supporters cheap labor and Democrats were building their base.

I now believe the border is unsecured because the world banking cartel is getting us ready to more seamlessly blend into the new world order. They think they've dumbed enough of us down and now they need to dilute the independent minded population with more tractable and obedient inhabitants.
 
See what's up? The government is selling us down the river!

IF they want to tighten up ILLEGAL Problems - its fought tooth and nail
IF they want to be a sanctuary city like San Fransisco - its defended to no end.

... and how does this reflect on those who came to the USA legally? :confused:
It is a slap in the face and insults integrity!
 
Marshabar said:
I'm really curious to see if Republicans do any better. The border has been unsecured for at least thirty years under both Democrats and Republicans. I used to think it was because Republicans were giving their supporters cheap labor and Democrats were building their base.
Click to expand...

Republican as in national Republicans? No, I have no faith in any of them. It's why states are having to take their own actions.
 
Marshabar said:
I'm really curious to see if Republicans do any better. The border has been unsecured for at least thirty years under both Democrats and Republicans. I used to think it was because Republicans were giving their supporters cheap labor and Democrats were building their base.

I now believe the border is unsecured because the world banking cartel is getting us ready to more seamlessly blend into the new world order. They think they've dumbed enough of us down and now they need to dilute the independent minded population with more tractable and obedient inhabitants.
Click to expand...

When the Republicans were running the show, the unemployment rate was half what it is now.
 
apdst said:
When the Republicans were running the show, the unemployment rate was half what it is now.
Click to expand...

Very related to the topic. And that high unemployment rate wouldn't have anything to do with the economic recession that happened, would it?
 
krickitt said:
The Feds need to get out of the way if they refuse to enforce the laws, and let the states do it. Imagine a USA without illegals.. 30% less in prison, reduction in crime, the savings in welfare ALONE could cover all the uninsured Americans without spending one more cent on Oblamacare.. jobs.. remember jobs?? In Georgia they pay illegals $100 a day to pick Vidalia onions. Lots of unemployed Americans will pick onions for $100 a day rather than be on the gov't dole. If some states choose to keep this national nightmare going-- let them. We don't want to in AZ. But sanctuary states really should not whine for Fed money if they keep enabling the problem.
Click to expand...

Georgia is having lots of trouble due to the shortage of farm workers.

Farmers tie labor shortage to state's new immigration law, ask for help  | ajc.com
 
Pity, but not a surprise. The feds can't let states enforce federal laws that the government is being bribed not to enforce.
 
Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.
Click to expand...

He's right about that. It is a federal responsibility. Why they don't accept that responsibility and do something effective about illegal immigration is another question. Now, that raises a third issue:

If the federal government can block a state from trying to take on something that is the responsibility of the federal government, could a state then block the federal government from taking on an issue that belongs to the state?
 
Dittohead not! said:
He's right about that. It is a federal responsibility. Why they don't accept that responsibility and do something effective about illegal immigration is another question. Now, that raises a third issue:

If the federal government can block a state from trying to take on something that is the responsibility of the federal government, could a state then block the federal government from taking on an issue that belongs to the state?
Click to expand...

Yes. That happens all the time. States have kicked us out of investigations before hundreds of times. It happens a lot with DEA guys since their jurisdiction tends to cross paths with local narcotics units. A good example would be bank robbery, which is federal jurisdiction. If a car in the parking lot of the bank were stolen, the states/locals will argue jurisdiction over that car and the suspects stealing that car, and likely end up a part of the FBI investigation. In this case though, as I've mentioned, there is a specific law, INA 287g, which states that for a state/local police force to enforce immigration law, it must be done under ICE supervision and with written consent from the DOJ/DHS (I believe it's DOJ, it was DOJ last time I heard about it but with the new department that may have changed). In these cases you are usurping 287g and the states are trying to enforce immigration law, which is simply not allowed.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
He's right about that. It is a federal responsibility. Why they don't accept that responsibility and do something effective about illegal immigration is another question. Now, that raises a third issue:

If the federal government can block a state from trying to take on something that is the responsibility of the federal government, could a state then block the federal government from taking on an issue that belongs to the state?
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. However, the interstate commerce clause has been so stretched out as to include almost anything, the Feds have created justification to get involved in things it never should have been...
 
Gargantuan said:
Yes. That happens all the time. States have kicked us out of investigations before hundreds of times. It happens a lot with DEA guys since their jurisdiction tends to cross paths with local narcotics units. A good example would be bank robbery, which is federal jurisdiction. If a car in the parking lot of the bank were stolen, the states/locals will argue jurisdiction over that car and the suspects stealing that car, and likely end up a part of the FBI investigation. In this case though, as I've mentioned, there is a specific law, INA 287g, which states that for a state/local police force to enforce immigration law, it must be done under ICE supervision and with written consent from the DOJ/DHS (I believe it's DOJ, it was DOJ last time I heard about it but with the new department that may have changed). In these cases you are usurping 287g and the states are trying to enforce immigration law, which is simply not allowed.
Click to expand...
With that level of cooperation, it's a wonder our laws get enforced at all.
 
RStringfield said:
Georgia is having lots of trouble due to the shortage of farm workers.

Farmers tie labor shortage to state's new immigration law, ask for help *| ajc.com
Click to expand...

I do not believe this for a second. The unemployment rate is 9.8% (in reality, likely higher). They may have problems finding people who will work 12 hour days for $5.00 an hour but if they truely need employee's they could find them.

For the sake of arguement, *if* there truely was a shortage this would be a great oppertunity to put those on welfare to work.
 
1Perry said:
I do not believe this for a second. The unemployment rate is 9.8% (in reality, likely higher). They may have problems finding people who will work 12 hour days for $5.00 an hour but if they truely need employee's they could find them.
Click to expand...

Denial, that's always a good strategy.


For the sake of arguement, *if* there truely was a shortage this would be a great oppertunity to put those on welfare to work.
Click to expand...

That won't work either. They have tried working parolee and probationers but guess what? They found out farm labor sucks! Many of them won't stick with it for a full day.
 
RStringfield said:
Denial, that's always a good strategy.
Click to expand...

And yet you did nothing to refute my reasoning.

That won't work either. They have tried working parolee and probationers but guess what? They found out farm labor sucks! Many of them won't stick with it for a full day.
Click to expand...

I didn't specify parolee and probationers but I do have some experience there and I know there are some that will indeed work these type of jobs to work off fines.
 
Gargantuan said:
It's really not constitutional though... federal law = enforced by federal government. INA 287g would apply if the local/state had written permission from the federal government, then were trained accordingly by ICE, but since the states are not doing that, this is going to get thrown out. That is precisely the reason this law was blocked.
Click to expand...
The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.
 
deltabtry said:
The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.
Click to expand...

But ummmm, this is a power explicitly granted to the feds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom