Here are some links:
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/ricol.htm
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1103.html
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/lawsuit.htm
Sheriff Joe Aripaio is doing his part in Maricopa County Arizona by rounding up illegals in Maricopa County and charging them with committing Conspiracy to Smuggle because they hired the Smuggler to bring them in illegally.
Remember Sheriff Joe? He's the one with a tent city jail in the middle of the Arizona desert.
And just WHO is going to bring a successful lawsuit here? And Who is going to enforce the outcome? Nobody is doing it with any of the existing laws now. The congress is looking to create more dependants on BIG GOVERNMENT and state sponsored Socialism. Taxpayers and honest citizens be damned!
How about suing government agencies (Border Patrol, ICE,IRS) for not enforcing the existing laws?
Good.
Local Law Enforcement may cooperate with Immigration Enforcement
In a March 22, 2005 ruling, in Muehler v Mena, in unanimous decision from a Court known for its 5-4 splits, the United States Supreme Court essentially said that asking about immigration status during a lawful police contact (or, by implication, any lawful contact) was as fundamental a question as asking for name, address and date of birth. Indeed, the Court made clear that no predicate "independent reasonable cause' need exist to inquire into immigration status. It is the Law of the Land.
Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”...
If there were even a hint that merely asking about immigration status is discriminatory (as claimed by proponents of the proposed Ordinance), then you might expect to have had at least one dissenter in that decision: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice Ginsberg was general counsel of the ACLU from 1973 to 1980 and sat on its National Board of Directors from 1974 to 1980. Justice Ginsberg's joining the entire court in this decision speaks volumes about its judicial wisdom and legal common sense.
Congress expressly intended for local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to believe that an individual is in the country illegally, even though immigration law enforcement is not their primary responsibility. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration laws, even if their departments have non-cooperation policies.
Good. It's nice to hear someone is getting this ball rolling.
This is a great move. Someone was thinking!
The problem is the Amnesty bill as passed by the Senate.
It not only provides Amnesty for the Invaders, it provides for Amnesty for the companies that hired them also, and shields them from RICO prosecution.
That part is likely to pass, in some form.