It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states can prosecute illegal aliens for identity theft

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+41 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I would like someone explain to me why it's NOT ok to prosecute someone for identity theft, whether they are in the country illegally or not! How was this not 9-0?

Source



+15 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

Absolutely agree...the justices that said it was ok, should lose their robe.

As should every official on the West coast that lets people steal and commit violence with zero recompence.


+17 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

It used to be common sense that if someone broke the law, infringed on another persons rights, then they should be punished.

In 2001, common sense was repealed in Washington DC under the "I'm A ####ing Retard Act" sponsored by some ####tard in a 5,000 dollar suit.

As of yet, we still don't have enough republicans or democrats to repeal this law so until we elect some people that aren't ####ing retards, then common sense will have to stay away from Washington DC.


+15 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

Bet if they defrauded a BANK they sure as hell would be prosecuted!

The sad thing is 4 voted in favor of illegal immigrants. Sadly the Globalists have already succeeded in infiltrating are justice system.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:19 AM
link   
just "off the cuff," it is a legal minefield for states to prosecute for federal crimes; or for people with diplomatic status.

Ambassadors don't pay parking tickets. It is technically their US. federally-issued papers of standing (recognizing them as ambassadors, etc).

Mexico in particular will jump through logical hoops to save their people who run afoul of gringo laws. They will provide assistance to any Mexican national accused of capital murder in Texas, for one. (Capital murder is liable to capital punishment in Texas, and Mexico forbids its people to be executed for capital crimes, since Mexico doesn't have a death penalty).

For a while at least when I was working, Mexican embassies would issue "driver's ID" cards to all comers. No photo or anything, just name, DOB and address. LEOs were supposed to accept that at face value as real. the "Real ID Act" put an end to that.

Their fancy-pantelones lawyers would argue that a US state doesn't have standing to prosecute a foreign or diplomatic person.

Texas law said you are welcome to make your appeals from your cell; but if you are the human found guilty you will personally do the time--- even under a fake ID or false name or "John Doe" or whatever if you refused to identify yourself.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Gojira54

Bet if they defrauded a BANK they sure as hell would be prosecuted!

The sad thing is 4 voted in favor of illegal immigrants. Sadly the Globalists have already succeeded in infiltrating are justice system.




Word. when I was responsible for Crossing people's Ts and dotting their i's, it was a "2-Year Mandatory state jail felony" for impersonating a lawyer. with a fine not to exceed $100,000.

Impersonating a cop (by itself) was a class B misdemeanor. basically, they had to catch you in the act.



.
So go ahead and go to that halloween party dressed as a sexy cop.

Just don't pretend to be a lawyer. The full wrath of the American Bar Association will smite thee and thy bank account forever in hell.
edit on 5-3-2020 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think we have a winner on best reply today. LOL!!



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

Agreed.

This is strange that it even had to be decided by the sc.

If you still someones identity you should be arrested. Period.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

This is wht the Democrat justices disgust me. They vote political ideology, terrifying.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Gojira54

Agreed.

This is strange that it even had to be decided by the sc.

If you still someones identity you should be arrested. Period.

And EVERY liberal justice thinks they should not be. How?



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54
It was a question of jurisdiction.

Can the state prosecute or is it the sole jurisdiction of the feds?



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

Who were the four judges who voted against it. They need to go away.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gojira54
I would like someone explain to me why it's NOT ok to prosecute someone for identity theft, whether they are in the country illegally or not! How was this not 9-0?



I was thinking the same thing... Identity theft can ruin people's lives for years and even decades. Can someone give us the logical reasoning why the liberals on the court would vote no?

So the ruling was...


Ruled that there is nothing in federal immigration law that forbids state prosecutors from going after undocumented aliens who used false or stolen identification.


The liberals argued that immigration-related employment fraud is only a federal matter....


edit on 5-3-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass


Who were the four judges who voted against it. They need to go away.


All Liberal... I will bet my paycheck...lol



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Why did we need a court rule for this?

F@#$ing amazing.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

No wonder I've been getting so many phone calls in Spanish, and Burrito menus in the mail.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:21 AM
link   
This my friends is why everyone MUST get out and vote for Trump in 2020, even if you think he is already a shoe in for a landslide victory get your ass out and vote to make sure.
Hillary had a 98% chance of victory too!
RBG will not last another 4 years and we can NOT afford to let the regressive marxists gain power in the SC.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Waterglass


Who were the four judges who voted against it. They need to go away.


All Liberal... I will bet my paycheck...lol


It's way past calling them liberal. They are "Globalists"! Judges like these are not unique to just the USA. They are embedded in every Western/European nation.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gojira54

i would like someone to actually comprehend this ruling



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

It seems like they can't even be bothered to read the source linked in the OP.


Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, and said that U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work when he wrote the law:
"reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country"




top topics



 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join