FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/03/2014 2:55:49 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A former Pennsylvania coal town and a Dallas suburb lost a lengthy battle to enact anti-immigrant laws Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their appeals.
The high court has held since 2012 that immigration issues are largely a matter for federal agencies, not local governments, to regulate.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I guess this means local and state governments no longer have to collect gasoline taxes for the feds. I guess police departments will never go around enforcing any federal laws now?
All the Dallas suburb did was call the feds if they suspected an arrestee was in the country illegally, that is what the program was set up for.
They didn’t answer a fundamental question: What option do the states have when the federal government refuses to enforce the laws enacted.
We can’t wait. If the Federal government won’t act, we will. (Ubama doctrine)
Of course they answered that question. The answer was ... “none”.
Farmers Branch did a little more than call the feds. They attempted to ban illegal immigrants from renting property. (Personally, I think Farmers Branch was in the right.)
me too
How can an illegal alien (or their proxy ACLU) have standing?
“All the Dallas suburb did was call the feds if they suspected an arrestee was in the country illegally, that is what the program was set up for.”
This case wasn’t about the cooperative DHS system between the local constabulary and the Feds in re: illegal aliens called ‘Secure Communities’ that was/is(?) used in another Dallas suburb, Irving and received significant media coverage.
This was about banning illegals from renting within Farmers Branch city limits. The PA town took that one step further and banned illegals from working.
Ask Osama Obama's own illegal alien aunt and uncle...both of whom have been granted permission to stay after having ignored several deportation orders issue over many years.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3129035/posts
And of course the 9th Circuit say's it's ok for forbid the wearing of the American flag in California high schools.
I'm so sick to bleeding gums death of politicians, bureaucrats, Secretaries Of..., 'Czars,' and the black robed sewer rats who lord over us these days.
In these two particular cases, local city governments were the entities who filed suit, the City of Farmers Branch, TX and the City of Hazelton, PA, respectively.
I think it is a good idea to pass the local laws anyway. Some illegals will decide to reside elsewhere.
I am sorry for the German family. I hate that Holder Department of Injustice appealed the grant of asylum to that family. However, there was not a constitutional question that SCOTUS needed to resolve in that case. The Constitution grants Congress the power to enact laws regarding immigration. Congress can act to address that case.
The several states created the federal, not the other way around, so they should be allowed - even encouraged - to have local and statewide laws that supplement and augment any federal legislation if it suits their needs. The federal government has no standing to prevent laws within the states or localities.
If we can have sanctuary cities, why can’t we have anti-sanctuary cities?
Pass 10 immigration laws and even if only 1 of them you can enforce the illegal situation is better than it was before.
Yea, roger that.
"Congress can act to address that case."
I'll hold my breath.
Forgive my sarcasm, but I do find it frustrating sometimes how Supreme Court judges are so selective about when they can and cannot legislate.
Why did they file suit?
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.