Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status

In a move similar to Arizona’s SB1070, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ruled that law enforcement officials in Virginia can check on the immigration status of suspects when they are arrested. This almost seems like Richmond daring the Obama Administration to launch a lawsuit directly across the Potomac River.

From Fox News:

In a decision that could lay the groundwork for an Arizona-style immigration policy, Virginia’s attorney general said state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone “stopped or arrested.”

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.

“It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested,” he wrote.

If Barack Obama was hoping that the immigration issue would “go away” after leftist judge Susan Bolton gutted the Arizona law, he must be sorely disappointed at this point.

Also, coming on the heels of a Federal judge allowing a Virginia lawsuit against Obamacare to move forward, this comes as a double whammy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status
FoxNews.com
August 2, 2010

Federal Judge Allows Virginia Lawsuit Against Obamacare To Move Forward

From the Wall Street Journal:

Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he’ll let the state of Virginia’s challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March, shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia’s lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

  • The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head.

And a whole lot of stuff is going to come out that the Obama administration and its supporters would rather not have a public debate about. Things like how the Republicans were locked out of meetings where the bill was written, the benefits offered to certain states so that their Senators would vote the right way, etc. This is going to be a very fun case to watch.

Thank God there is some sanity left in the Judiciary somewhere.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Virginia Judge: The Suit Against The Health Care Law Goes Forward
Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal
August 2, 2010

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says

It’s a sad day when the President of the United States sides with illegals over legitimate American citizens. This action shows where Obama’s heart really is, and it is not with the American people.

From Fox News:

Obama and other top officials have criticized the law as misguided, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has slammed the administration for pursuing a lawsuit. She claims the administration has not done enough to secure the border — a charge the administration denies.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

“We’ll meet them in court … and we will win,” she said, calling the administration’s actions a “disappointment.”

The Arizona law has touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona’s.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as “unenforceable” and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a “national standard” is needed and that he won’t “kick the can down the road” any longer.

There’s only one problem with Obama’s statements on the issue: The Arizona law mirrors current Federal law.

Lack Of Leadership In The Immigration Debate
Michael Zuckerman
CBS News
May 12, 2010

That’s right, 8 USC 1357 is the same law except that it is more permissive in it’s enforcement. The Arizona law is much more restrictive in how it can be applied.

Also remember that Eric Holder admitted that he had never read the Arizona law before offering criticism for it.

Far from being post-racial or any kind of a uniter, this latest action shows Obama in his true colors. He is a race-hustler and a class-warfare scam artist who holds non-Americans in higher regard than he holds legitimate Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says
Fox News with Mike Levine
July 6, 2010

What? Mexico Wants To Dictate Internal U.S. Law?

This is nothing but complete hypocritical arrogance on the part of the Mexican government. Mexico encourages its citizens to illegally enter the U.S. and then turns around and slaps us in the face if we try to enforce our own, very Constitutional, immigration law.

First, let’s remember that Mexico is the progenitor of one of the largest human rights violations crises in the Western Hemisphere thanks to their own policy of dealing with illegals inside their own borders. You can read about those violations here:

Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning Mexican Immigration Policy

From Fox News:

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country’s own interests and its citizens’ rights are at stake.

Their own interest? Let’s see what that means. That means they can allow their drug lords unfettered access to the American border. That means they can send their citizens across the border to get free medical care from our Emergency Room’s at the expense of the American taxpayer. That means they can go on kidnapping and raping illegals within their own borders but cry foul at the very humane treatment we give illegals here. It’s all propanganda and Obama and the media have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Did you ever hear the joke about the Mexican who brought a knife to a gunfight? Well this case is a joke about a Mexican lawyer who brought an arrogant attitude to a Constitutional fight. If these Mexican lawyers were so good, then why didn’t they read 8 U.S.C. 1357. Had they done so, they would realize how idiotic their suit is considering that Arizona’s law is a mirror of existing Federal law. Before they can go after Arizona, they have to go after the U.S. Federal government. Do you think Obama is going to allow that?

Speaking of Obama, if he shows preference for the Mexicans over American citizens, then this nation will be entering into a dark age in which violence may very well result. Obama and his leftists cronies cannot keep throwing fuel onto this fire without expecting a flash-over at some point.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law, Citing ‘Grave Concerns’
Fox News
June 23, 2010

Tell Your Senators To Oppose S. 181, The Lily Ledbetter Act

On January 15, 2009, the Senate voted 74 to 23 to proceed with the Lily Ledbetter Act. I documented this and one other destructive piece of legislation in a previous blog entry here:

Gender Equity Frivoulous Lawsuits Will Once Again Jam Our Legal System
84rules
January 8, 2009

The Democrats in Congress are hell-bent on inflicting this wasteful, destructive legislation on us once again. The Lily Ledbetter Act opens the door wide for all kinds of lawsuits since the language of the bill permits anyone to be a vicitm of discrimination.

Remember back in the late 80’s when our court system was so jammed with frivolous lawsuits that hardened criminals were being set free simply because there was no space on the court dockets to try their cases and they were being held too long while waiting for a “speedy, public trial?” Well, the Lily Ledbetter Act and its companion, the Paycheck Fairness Act, are threatening to bring us back to those days.

According to Eagle Forum:

Please note that S. 181 is different than the House passed version of the Lilly Ledbetter bill, H.R. 11. S. 181 is worse. Not only will it overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007), which upheld the timely filing of claims of alleged pay discrimination, S. 181 would also expand the class of potential plaintiffs to anyone “affected by” discrimination. A plausible reading of this language means a spouse or heir who receives pension checks and was not a victim of discrimination would have standing to file a lawsuit.

This is a dangerous addition to an already destructive bill. At a time when more than 11 million Americans are unemployed, the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years, these bills would expose large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for businesses to hire more workers in America, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation. The only things these two bills will stimulate are more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States.

The big concern here is that businesses will be more reluctant to hire workers, especially women or members of any other group that may try to take advantage of the poorly worded provisions of the Lily Ledbetter Act. I wouldn’t blame any business that did so.

Further, these two pieces of legislation would only serve to make some lawyers rich at the expense of the American consumer who would ultimately foot the bill for these frivolous lawsuits.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has proposed an alternative piece of legislation. It is S. 166, the Title VII Fairness Act.

Please contact your Senators and ask them to oppose S. 181 and support S. 166.

You can reach your Senators on-line here:

Congressional Email Directory

And the Eagle Forum entry on-line here:

Senate To Vote On S. 181
Eagle Forum
January 19, 2008

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.