Judge Permanently Bars Provisions of Indiana Immigration Law [AG Will Not Appeal]

LATimes ^ | March 30, 2013 | Paloma Esquivel

[Steelfish]

By Paloma Esquivel March 30, 2013 Two major parts of an Indiana law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration have been permanently barred from taking effect by a federal judge.

The law, approved in 2011, was part of a wave of state crackdowns on unauthorized immigration inspired by Arizona

[SatinDoll]

Do you know if Indiana’s State AG Zoeller a Democrat?

[Iron Munro]

Why go through all the expense of campaigns and elections?

Just have appointed judges tell us what they want.
That’s what happens anyway.

[Iron Munro]

Do you know if Indiana’s State AG Zoeller a Democrat?

Google says that he is a Republican.

[BobL]

“Google says that he is a Republican.”

Apparently from the MITCH DANIELS / RICK PERRY wing of the party - which (understandably) looks at ILLEGALs as the only reliable source of labor. The problem, however, is that they country will simply CEASE TO EXIST should they get their way and legalize them.

[Jack Hammer]

The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to preserve this enormous voter base - illegal aliens, who depend on the government to keep right on stealing the hard-earned cash of law-abiding, tax-paying Americans to furnish the good life for all the Mexicans who can’t, or won’t, make it in Mexico.

[lakecumberlandvet]

States pass constitutional laws the feds don’t like and then the feds take the states to fed courts and the fed courts side with the feds (imagine that) and then the states discard the laws they passed. State legislatures and governors need to do what’s best for their states and ignore the feds when necessary.

[Zhang Fei]

The article is misleading. Those aren’t the major parts of SEA 590. The major parts are detailed in the following article and will be contested by the AG:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/federal-appeals-judge-blocks-portions-of-indiana-s-immigration-law/article_a2772ba9-5e26-59c2-95e5-7002cdad7011.html

---

It’s unknown how Barker’s ruling will affect a civil lawsuit brought against state and region officials by East Chicago-based Hispanic cultural organization Union Benefica Mexicana. The organization is challenging some provisions of Senate Enrolled Act 590, primarily on the basis of employment, as unconstitutional and in violation of civil liberties.

As it relates to the Union Benefica Mexicana complaint, the law bans illegal immigrants from receiving state welfare benefits, requires businesses to reimburse Indiana for unemployment payments to illegal workers, mandates state contractors verify the immigration status of their employees and prohibits Indiana residents, in most circumstances, from transporting groups of illegal immigrants.

Zoeller’s release said the attorney general’s office continues to defend the state immigration statue against the separate legal challenge brought by Union Benefica Mexicana.

---

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Sadly, we have ceased to be a constitutional government, and evolved into a judiocracy: Whatever some judges (often unelected) claim to be the law, now is the law...

[Tzimisce]

Isn’t Obamaland great?

You work your ass off, keep your nose clean, obey the law and get manhandled by all the guys who did none of the above....

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for the heads up.
Gee, who would ever think a Democrat “mainstream” newsroom like the LA Times would be misleading?

[longtermmemmory]

insider judges and insider politicians who have back room deals to manipulate the law.

If the AG refuses to do his job then the citizens have no recourse and the statute of limitations / deadlines to appeal pass.

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, let's all take a deep breath.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker was appointed by Ronald Reagan and has been consistently as conservative as anyone could ever have hoped for.

The parts of this statute found to be unconstitutional purported to allow the arrest of an alien without a warrant and without reasonable cause to believe that the alien was in this country illegally. The provisions were obviously unconstitutional; the only questions was: how much of an attorney fee award was the ACLU going to receive? The Indiana Attorney General denied them their windfall by not opposing their suit.