Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Strikes Key Provisions of South Carolina Immigration Law
FoxNews.com ^ | 12./22/11 | AP

Posted on 12/22/2011 11:42:55 AM PST by ColdOne

A federal judge on Thursday blocked three key provisions of South Carolina's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigration.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel granted the federal government's request for an injunction against the law that's set to take effect Jan. 1.

The ruling applies to portions that require law officers to check the status of anyone they stop for something else and suspect is in the country illegally. Gergel also halted the implementation of sections pertaining to the transportation of illegal immigrants and immigrant registration cards.

Gergel has denied the state's request that he suspend all court hearings

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: aliens; crimaliens; illegals; immigrationlaw; judge; obamaappointee; sc; scimmigrationlaw; southcarolina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last
To: ColdOne

I have what could be a possible compromise solution - it ain’t perfect, but it is doable.

1. Seal the border [troops, fence, etc.] and provide a PERMANENT force MORE THAN ADEQUATE to enforce the border. This would provide jobs for many US citizens in the border states.

2. Allow current illegals to apply for legal residency as resident aliens [as long as they abide by all US laws].

HOWEVER, they will NEVER be able to become US citizens AND their children who were born here [while they were illegal] will NEVER become US citizens.

These two types of residents will NEVER be allowed to sponsor family members to come into the United States.

However, once they become legal residents, their children born AFTER that WILL be US citizens.

These new children [born in lets say the year 2012] will NOT be able to sponsor members of their family until the year 2030 [when they are 18]. This will be under a quota system - NOT everyone will get to sponsor.

Sponsored family members are given resident alien status and are NEVER allowed to become US citizens, nor are they allowed to sponsor family members.

However, their children [born here after they get resident alien status] WILL be able to sponsor family members.

ANYONE caught violating the provisions of this law will be deported from the US. If the person in violation is a US citizen, the citizenship is revoked and they are deported.

If a sponsored family member is a resident alien and commits ANY felony, their resident alien status is revoked, they are deported, AND their US citizen sponsor LOSES the right to EVER sponsor again.

I realize this might require a Constitutional Amendment.


51 posted on 12/22/2011 2:14:33 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

Many intend to do precisely that.
They’re all coming out.


52 posted on 12/22/2011 3:10:09 PM PST by catroina54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Thank you for the link , I read part of it and liked it , I've printed it out for future reading and consultation.
This IS a blue print to take back the traditional/constitutional values that created the greatest country the world has ever seen
53 posted on 12/22/2011 3:16:07 PM PST by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx

Good post and all so true. I remember gathering votes for
prop 187 in 1994. Did not do any good.
Who cares what the voters wanted is what happened
here in CA.


54 posted on 12/22/2011 3:24:14 PM PST by Jennikins (We are being ruled, not governed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mia
Has the Supreme Court ruled on the Arizona suit yet?

This will be decided by Supreme Anthony Kennedy next year. He is the swing vote on the Supremes and the single most powerful man in America. And probably the world since the Supremes have decided they can control the US military and the Congress and President Bush meekly went along with that power grab.

I noticed that the dissipated old fart RINO George Will decided that taking on the courts by Newt was not "prudent." Well stick it up your shriveled a*ss with the rest of the prunes you take to keep yourself going, Mr. Will.
55 posted on 12/22/2011 3:34:08 PM PST by fifedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

The same issue is with Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer.
Nothing is being done there either.


56 posted on 12/22/2011 3:37:46 PM PST by Jennikins (We are being ruled, not governed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup

The SC governor & Repub legislators should simply tell 0dumb0’s appointed judge to go E’ff himself.... that SC will continue to implement & enforce the law as it was passed.
_____________________________________

That’s what it is going to take but nobody has the balls to fight this coup.


57 posted on 12/22/2011 3:44:59 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marlon

“F**king RATS!” ~ Frank Costello


58 posted on 12/22/2011 3:45:12 PM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Robe

You’re welcome. Newt may be the guy to lead our nation to a renewal of Constitutional government. In NH today, he promised to dog Hussein into debating him, just as Lincoln did to Douglas.


59 posted on 12/22/2011 3:48:40 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
When o When are these governors going to grow a set and tell the Federal judge to get lost. They have no jurisdiction over a sovereign state. Only SCOTUS does. The constitution is very clear.

The solution is so simple. States send the feds tax money and they get back a tiny fraction. STOP SENDING IT.
Force the feds to send federal marshalls to arrest elected state officials. See how that works out when half the states join in.

60 posted on 12/22/2011 3:59:59 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Hmm, I wasn’t aware the States collected revenue from individuals for the feds.


61 posted on 12/22/2011 4:08:03 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: wiggen
I can’t believe how many people repeat that mantra of ‘we can’t deport them all’. Whats the fear?

The housing market will finish evaporating.


62 posted on 12/22/2011 4:48:25 PM PST by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Commie lib activists are not “judges”. They are commie lib activists.


63 posted on 12/22/2011 6:46:50 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Stop BIG Government Greed Now!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
Do States have no rights to defend themselves any more?

Sure they do. They just have to have the cojones to defend their own territories, citizens, and security interests, and dare the feds to stop them.

Key word: cojones...

64 posted on 12/22/2011 9:23:52 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
When o When are these governors going to grow a set and tell the Federal judge to get lost. They have no jurisdiction over a sovereign state. Only SCOTUS does. The constitution is very clear.

Bump to the bumpus maximus.


65 posted on 12/22/2011 9:27:28 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

“Amazing... we’re simply not allowed to defend against a foreign invasion.”

Well, it’s obvious the federal government has failed — and failed miserably — at its pimary duty: To protect the nation from invasion. We have the most feckless and emasculated political leadership in our nation’s history. What’s more: They are treasonous.


66 posted on 12/22/2011 11:13:04 PM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

“Do States have no rights to defend themselves any more?”

Not since the tyrannical Abe Lincoln invaded the Southern states.


67 posted on 12/22/2011 11:14:26 PM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
“Amazing... we’re simply not allowed to defend against a foreign invasion.” Well, it’s obvious the federal government has failed — and failed miserably — at its pimary duty: To protect the nation from invasion. We have the most feckless and emasculated political leadership in our nation’s history. What’s more: They are treasonous.

That's soooo good...deserving a re-post.

68 posted on 12/22/2011 11:15:50 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
At that point I realized that the people no longer have a voice in how this country operates.

The brilliant operating idea of the founding fathers was to create a Constitution which would protect the people against the government and protect the government against the mob. Obviously, that is a very fine line and requires continuous balancing that the experiment does not lurch too far toward tyranny by government or too far in the other direction toward tyranny by the majority.

Certainly, the bias is toward protecting the people from the government.

Put another way, when the will of the people is expressed in an unequivocal manifestation such as a referendum in California, that Democratic impulse should be accorded the greatest deference and protected from being nullified by government. To justify nullifying the expressed will of the people, there must be at minimum a provision which is repugnant to the Constitution.

In other words, the right of the minority must be grounded firmly and I might add, explicitly, in the Constitution to justify setting aside the will of the majority. The often cited example is that it's free speech which by definition needs protection against the will of the majority precisely because it is unpopular. If we define the utterance as free speech, it is protected against the will of the majority. And, especially is it protected against the will of the government which may or may not pose as representing the majority of the people.

I am at a loss to understand how proposition 187 represents a threat to constitutional democracy as it sought to "prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California. "

Obviously, without reading the case, the resort was to the 14th amendment and the equal protection of laws. The argument is that the amendment elevates persons to the level at which they enjoy the same rights as citizens. To come to this conclusion is utterly to ignore the postbellum history of reconstruction etc.

The 14th amendment was added to the Constitution to protect a minority, former slaves, from disenfranchisement by a white majority in the South and in the North as well. It accorded them citizenship and provided that, as citizens, they should receive the same treatment as other citizens. I believe that by seizing on the language and not the historical meaning of the 14th amendment, activist courts have actually subverted the meaning of the Constitution as intended by the original framers and subsequent amendments.

Enter Newt Gingrich.

How disruptive of our "rule of law", as asserted by no less an eminence than George Will, do Gingrich's remedies look in this perspective? Is it disruptive of our constitutional system to disenfranchise courts which pervert the Constitution in order to subvert the expressed will of the people?


69 posted on 12/23/2011 1:51:40 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: marlon

yep. your are correct. Marxism is gaining a foothold in our great Country.


70 posted on 12/23/2011 3:53:57 AM PST by redshawk (0pansy is a Liar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The time has come for people in this country to take away the power of a single (politically motivated) judge to be able to stand in the way of a law that the majority of the people want and voted for. The law should be structured such that a clown like this guy can say the law is unconstitutional, but that no action be taken on it until it has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Anybody agree?


71 posted on 12/23/2011 4:01:08 AM PST by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
When o When are these governors going to grow a set and tell the Federal judge to get lost.

Ain't gonna happen in SC:


72 posted on 12/23/2011 7:11:02 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

The North American RINO comes in all sizes and shapes, some even beautiful.


73 posted on 12/23/2011 7:17:28 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Is it disruptive of our constitutional system to disenfranchise courts which pervert the Constitution in order to subvert the expressed will of the people?

I agree with Gingrich. George Will went over to the Dark Side a long time ago...you are known by the company you keep.

Federal Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer (a Jimmy Carter appointee) was the real villain of the Prop 187 piece. Her accomplices were the unwitting [then] CA Attorney General Dan Lungren, who didn't vigorously pursue action on the appeal in the Ninth Circus; and later liberal Democrat Gov. Gray Davis, who ended the appeals process instead of representing the will of his own state's people.

Here's the history of Prop 187 as presented by The California Coalition for Immigration Reform: Proposition 187 History

From the legal perspective, which you appear qualified to appreciate, here is constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein's "take" on the sad story of Prop 187: Fein on Prop 187

It's a pretty cynical and depressing tale for those of us who believe in the Constitution.

74 posted on 12/23/2011 8:46:17 AM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

that’s exactly what I was thinking;

they should “occupy” Ft. Sumter; maybe Odumbass will get the message.


75 posted on 12/23/2011 3:58:53 PM PST by Segovia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

that’s exactly what I was thinking;

they should “occupy” Ft. Sumter; maybe Odumbass will get the message.


76 posted on 12/23/2011 4:00:25 PM PST by Segovia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
After I posted #74 I found some information in another thread that seems like an exact description of what the U.S. is currently experiencing: Democratic Totalitarianism. That certainly was the case with Prop 187.

The following quotes Lawrence Sellin from The Post and Email (URL below). I think he perfectly describes the situation that conservatives of all stripes, especially the Tea Party, are so concerned about.

"The American republic has entered the first stage of decline. It has become a totalitarian democracy, a political system described by Israeli historian J. L. Talmon, in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government.

"In every sense of the term, we have a rogue government, which has been hijacked by an oligarchy composed of a self-serving permanent political class, supported by an obsequious press and financed by and beholden to wealthy special interests in order to pursue personal power and profit at the expense of ordinary Americans; the very people who pay the nation’s bills and fight her wars.

"Politicians buy votes with our money, steal more money from our wallets and then repeat the process. It is a method designed to reward special interests in return for kickbacks in the form of campaign funding and other benefits in order to maintain themselves as permanent political parasites in Washington, D.C."

From: http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/23/how-obama-escapes-justice-a-congress-of-whores/ As far as I can tell Newt is the only Republican candidate who sees that issue clearly and is prepared to do something about it. That's why the Republican Establishment hates and fears him: he threatens to derail their Gravy Train.

77 posted on 12/23/2011 9:46:30 PM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

FURG
FUBO


78 posted on 12/24/2011 11:05:07 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; Bernard Marx; nathanbedford; All

Thanks for the link at #31 Jacguerie. Very interesting.

(ping in regards to Gingrich in case you haven’t seen it)


79 posted on 12/24/2011 11:51:11 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

My favorite quote in his paper was from Peter King of Iowa, to the effect that Congress could Constitutionally reduce the entire federal court system to Chief Justice John Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle. There is no reason a free people should put up with tyrannical black-robes.


80 posted on 12/24/2011 1:03:00 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All

Thanks again for the link at #31, Jacquerie. I went visiting immediately after post 79 and then the families came over. Kids and grandkids left about 1 hour ago.

HOORAY Newt Gingrich! Educational/Informative/One-possible-solution-to-a-boxcar-full-of-trouble-in...”a long train of abuses and usurpations”.

On that same topic, the BIG GOVERNMENT / BIG ELEPHANT in the room will be USSC 90-120 days out from the 2012 election taking up Hillary/Romney/Obama/TOTALITARIANCARE, Newt or no Newt (ANY of the others)...THERE is your election. Newt must understand and foresee this. Either way, he is positioning himself nicely.

#31 BUMP!

Merry Christmas FReepers

live - free - republic


81 posted on 12/24/2011 9:13:19 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson