Monday, March 10, 2014

 

US supreme court denies review of states' immigration cases

Texas and Pennsylvania attempts to crack down on illegal immigration quashed as court decides against hearing appeals.

Groups of tenants, landlords, employers and workers challenged the laws and won in both cases, prompting the towns to seek supreme court review.

The US supreme court on Monday rejected attempts by towns in Texas and Pennsylvania to revive local laws that cracked down on illegal immigration.

The court decided against hearing appeals filed by the towns of Farmers Branch, Texas, and Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which were seeking to overturn appeals court rulings that said the ordinances were trumped by federal immigration law. In doing so, the court left intact the appeals court rulings and avoided wading into the divisive issue of immigration at a time in which reform efforts have stalled in the US Congress.

Prompted by concerns that the federal government was not adequately enforcing immigration laws, officials in both towns enacted ordinances that, among other things, required tenants to provide identification that could later be verified with immigration authorities and penalized landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. The Hazleton ordinance also penalized employers for knowingly employing unlawful immigrants. Groups of tenants, landlords, employers and workers challenged the laws in court. They won in both cases, prompting the towns to seek supreme court review.

Advocates for immigrants say that five out of six federal courts of appeals that have dealt with similar housing-related ordinances have held that they conflict with the federal government’s role as the primary enforcer of immigration law.

The outlier was the St Louis, Missouri-based 8th US circuit court of appeals, which in June 2013 upheld an ordinance passed in the town of Fremont, Nebraska. That ordinance was different, lawyers opposing the laws say, because it did not penalize immigrants themselves, unlike the two ordinances at issue in the cases before the supreme court. Under both ordinances, tenants can be arrested and fined for occupying a residence without the necessary license.

The last time the court decided a major immigration case was in 2012 when it partially upheld Arizona’s immigration law. The previous year, the court upheld another Arizona law that penalizes businesses for hiring illegal immigrants. In April 2013, the court signaled a reluctance to get further involved in immigration when it declined to hear an appeal from Alabama seeking to revive a section of the state’s immigration law that criminalized the harboring of illegal immigrants.

The cases are City of Hazleton v Lozano, 13-531 and City of Farmers Branch, 13-516.
Tags : ,

Share

Social

The idea behind the text.
Respect for the truth is almost the basis of all morality.
Nothing can come from nothing.



Follow

Popular Topics

Read

Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a pilot. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows.

Like you, I used to think the world was this great place where everybody lived by the same standards I did, then some kid with a nail showed me I was living in his world, a world where chaos rules not order, a world where righteousness is not rewarded. That's Cesar's world, and if you're not willing to play by his rules, then you're gonna have to pay the price.

You think water moves fast? You should see ice. It moves like it has a mind. Like it knows it killed the world once and got a taste for murder. After the avalanche, it took us a week to climb out. Now, I don't know exactly when we turned on each other, but I know that seven of us survived the slide... and only five made it out. Now we took an oath, that I'm breaking now. We said we'd say it was the snow that killed the other two, but it wasn't. Nature is lethal but it doesn't hold a candle to man.

You see? It's curious. Ted did figure it out - time travel. And when we get back, we gonna tell everyone. How it's possible, how it's done, what the dangers are. But then why fifty years in the future when the spacecraft encounters a black hole does the computer call it an 'unknown entry event'? Why don't they know? If they don't know, that means we never told anyone. And if we never told anyone it means we never made it back. Hence we die down here. Just as a matter of deductive logic.