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.

 

Court blocks part of Alabama immigration no ID no water enforcement law

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Court blocks part of Alabama immigration no ID no water enforcement law


news.blogs.cnn.com

www.cnn.com...


A federal appeals court has blocked enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration enforcement law in Alabama.

The injunction issued Friday from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta came after the U.S. Justice Department – supported by a coalition of immigrant rights groups – requested that the legislation known as HB 56 be put on hold until the larger constitutional questions can be addressed, a process that could take months, at least.

The Obama administration says the Constitution does not permit states to deter illegal immigration, saying an issue with foreign p
(visit the link for the full news article)

articles.cnn.com...:JUSTICE

articles.cnn.com...:US
www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 14-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Federal appeals court blocks enforcement of parts of controversial immigration enforcement law in Alabama.
This was big news, as Alabama was wanting
to curb illegal aliens.

Here comes the Obama administration
trumping State rights and laws..

I believe if a state wants a certain law they should be
able to have that law.

Whether you agree with the NO ID NO WATER or this
law or not, this is a defeat for individual state rights.

Among selected provisions blocked from being enforced are:
-- Section 10, requiring immigrants to carry an alien registration card;
-- Section 28, allowing public school students to be questioned about their immigration status.
Among selected provisions Alabama will be allowed to enforce are:
-- Section 30, blocking undocumented immigrants from entering into a "business transaction";
-- Section 12, allowing local law enforcement to stop, detain or arrest upon reasonable suspicion anyone "unlawfully present" in the state
The case is U.S. v. Alabama (11-14532).




news.blogs.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 14-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Allowing a state to refuse water to someone is against the Constitution and human rights. I admit, I don't know the details of this insane law. But states can't just go willy nilly making laws that are unconstitutional.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Allowing a state to refuse water to someone is against the Constitution and human rights. I admit, I don't know the details of this insane law. But states can't just go willy nilly making laws that are unconstitutional.


I am really on the edge of the fence on this
as far as if it is right or not..

I stand firmly believing though states should have the right
to make there own laws..



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Allowing a state to refuse water to someone is against the Constitution and human rights. I admit, I don't know the details of this insane law. But states can't just go willy nilly making laws that are unconstitutional.


That's right, the basic right to sustenence (including water) is outlined in the UN charter for universal human rights. Of course, international charters are not binding or anything because it is expected that if you respect the right to life then you would follow the basic guidelines (lest you be seen by the rest of the world as someone who doesn't give a damn about human rights).



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
immigrant rights group? more like criminal rights group.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Trouble is then the nuts make awful laws, hasnt one state just banned oral sex?
You end up with religious freaks imposing their laughable laws on everyone else and its clear the US is not a free country.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
immigrant rights group? more like criminal rights group.


Define how they are criminal for simply being immigrants. Perhaps the criminals are the ones tasked with controlling the immigration. If they really wanted to stop it, they would have done it a long time ago- instead, there seems to be more US government border security alongside Canada than with Mexico.

It all comes down to economics under an imperial capitalist system. Its better for the system to hire cheap labourers than to pay fair wages for skilled workers. Why? Because the only primary goal of capitalist development is to always seek profit. This is why there's so many Mexican immigrants in your country (aside from the fact that American megacorporations like Monsanto have destroyed traditional Mexican farms by forcibly introducing genetically modified corn, which basically crushed the lives of many Mexicans so they go to the US to find work).



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Because the only primary goal of capitalist development is to always seek profit.


You NAILED it with this post.
Profit is the first, last and only concern, so of COURSE they're not going to allow THEIR government (which they now own) to enforce laws that would take their cheap work force (and higher profits) away.

This is not about the nasty Mexicans 'takin' our jobs'! It's about the leaders in this country being completely bought out and serving the Corporations by providing means to a cheap work force.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Allowing a state to refuse water to someone is against the Constitution and human rights. I admit, I don't know the details of this insane law. But states can't just go willy nilly making laws that are unconstitutional.


That's right, the basic right to sustenence (including water) is outlined in the UN charter for universal human rights. Of course, international charters are not binding or anything because it is expected that if you respect the right to life then you would follow the basic guidelines (lest you be seen by the rest of the world as someone who doesn't give a damn about human rights).


Bull. You have no right to city water. If you get behind on your bill they cut it off right fast and then charge you an extra $50 to turn it back on. If you could not afford to pay the bill, how does adding $50 help? They do not care about any human rights. If a poor person can't have water because they are poor then illegals can't have it since they are NOT supposed to be here.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
immigrant rights group? more like criminal rights group.


Define how they are criminal for simply being immigrants. Perhaps the criminals are the ones tasked with controlling the immigration. If they really wanted to stop it, they would have done it a long time ago- instead, there seems to be more US government border security alongside Canada than with Mexico.

It all comes down to economics under an imperial capitalist system. Its better for the system to hire cheap labourers than to pay fair wages for skilled workers. Why? Because the only primary goal of capitalist development is to always seek profit. This is why there's so many Mexican immigrants in your country (aside from the fact that American megacorporations like Monsanto have destroyed traditional Mexican farms by forcibly introducing genetically modified corn, which basically crushed the lives of many Mexicans so they go to the US to find work).




They are criminals the minute the crossed the border ILLEGALLY. Hey, since your such a bleeding heart, why don't YOU sneak into Mexico without papers and see how long you last or what kind of treatment you receive?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Trouble is then the nuts make awful laws, hasnt one state just banned oral sex?
You end up with religious freaks imposing their laughable laws on everyone else and its clear the US is not a free country.





Maybe, but this is not a religious matter. This is a state wanting to set there own laws.
Which is up to them. Life, liberty and the pursuance of happiness. Those rights are for US citizens though.
Californian people have voted to de-criminalize a substance for medical use and here come the feds!!

I do not think that is right for the feds or Obama to trump laws of a state.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Sweet baby Jesus.

I am not going to pay my water bill, and sue the city on human rights violations, when they come put a pad-lock on the water main.


edit on 10/14/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem


A federal appeals court has blocked enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration enforcement law in Alabama.

The injunction issued Friday from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta came after the U.S. Justice Department – supported by a coalition of immigrant rights groups – requested that the legislation known as HB 56 be put on hold until the larger constitutional questions can be addressed, a process that could take months, at least.

The Obama administration says the Constitution does not permit states to deter illegal immigration, saying an issue with foreign p
(visit the link for the full news


Hmm, since when does the Federal court or Obama administration care about the constitution?

States rights, Alabama needs to ignore this crap just like the Federal government ignores liberty.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


It isn't a crime it's an infraction. Might make you mad but actually, if they have not been deported before, it is no worse than a traffic ticket.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
I do not think that is right for the feds or Obama to trump laws of a state.


That was settled during the civil war. You might not think it's right but it is the way it is.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
From what I am reading the only thing stopped right now
is AL. forcing schools to check students immigration status
and that people must carry their papers at all times allowing cops
to detain anyone suspected of being illegal or not carrying papers.

Remember it is just partial for now..

Partial could change to all though.
edit on 14-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


It isn't a crime it's an infraction. Might make you mad but actually, if they have not been deported before, it is no worse than a traffic ticket.



First time around its a misdemeanor and, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony. So it is not simply an infraction equal to a traffic ticket...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


Jaywalking is a misdemeanor in some places. It would be pretty heavy handed to shut peoples water off for that.

Actually here is the law Section 237 (a)(1)(B)


(B) 2/ Present in violation of law.-Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the 2b/ United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) , is deportable.


This is not the criminal code it is administrative. It is an infraction and can be a crime if repeated but not the first time.
edit on 14-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


Jaywalking is a misdemeanor in some places. It would be pretty heavy handed to shut peoples water off for that.


edit on 14-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



They are not citizens. LIke I said try sneaking into Mexico and see how far you get... this is the ONLY country on the face of the planet that will allow a foreigner who dropped a kid to have their kid a citizen. No other country puts up with that sh!t. The state is trying to force them out, which I don't blame. They are a pariah on the country...



new topics




 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join