[judgeandjury]

On May 1 1995, the League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC") and another of the original plaintiffs sought summary judgment, stating that Proposition 187 is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the Federal government's exclusive constitutional authority over the regulation of immigration, Congress' exercise of that power through the Immigration and Nationality Act, and other federal statutes.

If it is indeed the case that the Federal Government has exclusive constitutional authority over the regulation of immigration, and which was supposedly the basis for overturning Prop 187 in California, then why is it that individual states have passed laws that grant certain privileges to illegal aliens, such as driver's licenses and in-state tuition for college attendance? If states can't deny services to illegal aliens because immigration is exclusively a federal matter, then why can states grant special privileges to illegal aliens if immigration is exclusively a federal matter?

[Bernard Marx]

I think you have a great point. But these days Politically Correct laws are never challenged, just as all initiatives like Prop. 187 come under immediate well-funded attack by special interest groups like LULAC and the ACLU. Somehow they always prevail. That's because the judicial deck is stacked.

The Democrats/Socialists decided long ago the courts would be their path to ultimate power in the era when "Republican" Earl Warren started making new radically liberal law from the bench. Despite the fact this has been going on for nearly 50 years many Americans are still amazingly unaware of how the game is played. I don't have the specific answer to your question but some Freeper with legal knowledge will probably explain it.