Posted on 07/07/2011 4:17:16 AM PDT by montag813
Georgia this week began the formal process of appealing the blocked of portions of their immigration law, HB87. On June 27th, Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request by the ACLU, the Mexican Government, and others, 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.
Judge Thrash's absurd ruling sounded in parts as if penned by a petulant staffer from the ACLU...
"The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," Thrash wrote in his ruling.Well, duh - Georgians actually want illegals to leave their state. Is that not obvious? What is disturbing is that a Federal judge would view Georgia's method for doing so - the enforcement of existing immigration laws - as a "hostile" act. Huh? What document did he swear an oath to uphold? I suggest he read it again as a refresher.
It is also dumfounding that, in the same sentence as Thrash (surprisingly) used the term "illegal aliens", he would also decry the enforcement of laws against law-breakers as creating "insecurity" and "fear" for them. Does a bank robber have a presumption of security and freedom? Should he stroll out of the bank unconcerned that any sirens, lights and drawn pistols await him? Similarly, should those who violated our border to come to Georgia, broke more laws to obtain employment and false ID, and any number of additional state or Federal felonies, be left free from enforcement and prosecution? Ridiculous.
Georgia's appeal will go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the ACLU et al will find a less welcoming audience then what they and Eric Holder found at the 9th Circus Kangaroo Court in San Francisco. 9 of the 16 justices at the Atlanta court are Republican appointees, unlike the 70% Democrat court on the 9th. Let's hope those justices use wisdom as often as Judge Thrash used his emotions, and restore these common sense provisions to the Georgia law.
And above these nascent disputes in Georgia, Alabama and Indiana (and soon in South Carolina) is Arizona's appeal of Judge Susan Bolton injunction against the bulk of SB1070. If the Supreme Court - which has already given Arizona a major victory this year - sides with Gov. Brewer & Co., then the ACLU, Eric Holder and the Mexican Government can go pound sand, as the rule of law on immigration will be re-established in EVERY state across the land.
Join Stand With Arizona on Facebook
Good for Georgia. Hope their appeal gets expedited and the law can be fully implemented soon.
Then I actually went and read HB87, and I honestly can't believe that anyone would have signed onto the two sections the court took issue with... Seriously? This is just a bloody enhancement law? Additional penalties if there's an illegal alien in the car?
It must have been written by a committee of monkeys. My favorite part is the exemption for employers transporting lawfully hired employees - they're illegal aliens, there's no manner for them to be lawfully hired. What in the world is a bus driver or a cab driver supposed to do with this law? Let me see your papers before you get in? I understand that there's provisions that state the driver must knowingly and intentionally do this, but knowing the zeal of prosecutors, simply the fact that the passengers 'look illegal' and such a thing was ignored could easily be construed as being 'knowingly and intentionally' harboring and transporting them. And with Georgia's definition of a motor vehicle ''Motor vehicle' means every vehicle which is self-propelled other than an electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD)', this could apply to a school bus, a boat, a ferry, or an airplane.
I think the judge in the case overstepped the bounds, and honestly, I've no intention of going out and finding his decision and reading it in full to see what his decision reads in detail. If the enhancement was limited in some fashion, such as limited to felonies, that would seem reasonable. But the only limitation is municipal or county codes - it is more than likely this would apply when someone was driving with a broken license plate light or neglected to use a seat belt, or made an unsafe lane change.
Rather than be outraged, Georgia should address the laws it wrote and tried to enact and put in some reasonable limitations. I'm all for striking out the judge's decision, but honestly, sections 7 and 8 are horribly written and should never have become law in the first place.
If Rick Perry is such a perfect conservative - how come he did not get any immagration law passed? He did not get a voter ID, an eVerify or any other already passed and approved by the Supreme Court law like GA or AZ. He is a politican not a conservative. He was Al Gore’s TX camapign manager - if Gore was for amnesty that may show the true nature of Perry.
I wish Gov Nathan Deal had just had the spine to tell that Federal Judge that he does not have constitutional jurisdiction over a sovereign state and gone ahead with the full law. The Constitution is very clear. Only the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over a state so if you want to sue tell it to the Supremes. One of these governors has got to step it up a notch.
to be fair, Perry did sign a Voter Id law from this session. Dead-on with regard to sanctuary cities bill.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.