ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE

Rate this Entry
While there are some politicians genuinely concerned about the subject of immigration who are backing anti-immigration laws because they believe in the cause, there are many more who have jumped on the anti-immigration bandwagon to score political points (John McCain - I'm talking to you). I wonder if politicians in small towns that don't have a lot of fat in their budgets are going to re-evaluate the costs and benefits when they have to explain to constituents why they have to pay hefty fees to plaintiffs in lawsuits like this one in a small town in Nebraska. Sure Sheriff Joe will laugh off his $500,000 verdict. But I don't think others will necessarily have the same reaction.

Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to Facebook Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to Twitter Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to Google Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to StumbleUpon Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to Reddit Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to Digg Submit "ACLU SUES FREMONT, NEBRASKA OVER ANTI-IMMIGRANT ORDINANCE" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. George Chell's Avatar
    Did you read this racist's false prophecy?

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/06/krikorian_arizona_suit/index.html
  2. Another Voice's Avatar
    Hi greg I want to ask you since you have a new position at AILA, does your organization provide legal help in any of these lawsuits against the anti-immigrant laws and ordinances?
  3. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    AILA has been very active over the years when it comes to litigating on immigration issues. It has done so directly or played a supporting role in cases brought by others.
  4. USC's Avatar
    As per the briefing schedule, the Hate State filed its reply on July 20:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34614052/Brewer-s-response-to-motion-for-SB-1070-injunction

    I must admit that I admire Arizona's legal team for their sheer audicity. Arizona argues that the law doesn't really mean what it says and that it is just badly drafted and that the Court should not rely on the plain English interpretation of the law (now, the Judge should ask the Arizona lawyer as to why the good Governor didn't veto it and ask the legislature to fix the language or why has the legislature not amended the offending language). One example, will suffice:

    "The State interprets A.R.S. ? 11-1051(B) to read that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person's immigration status be determined before the person is released. The State recognizes that this sentence of the statute might well have been more artfully worded, but principles of statutory construction, and common sense, support the State's interpretation. "[A]n important principle of statutory construction . . . [is] that a court should not construe a statute so as to create a result the legislature could not possibly have intended."Porter v. Triad of Ariz. (L.P.), 203 Ariz. 230, 233, 52 P.3d 799, 802 (App. 2002). Here, the Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona's law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe that the person is unlawfully present in the country."

    "Plaintiff's interpretation suggests the word "person" in the second sentence should be understood to mean both United States citizens and aliens. However, a United States citizen does not have an immigration status and nowhere in the INA does federal law ascribe an immigration status to any category of United States citizen. Accordingly, the only interpretation of the second sentence that is plausible is that "person" means "such person" - namely, aliens...."

    The Peoples response to the above garbage is due on 7/27. So, it is unknown if the United States will file a reply before the due date or if Judge Bolton will issue an injunction without the benefit of the Peoples response. Oral arguments are today at 430PM EDT.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548.html








Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: