Finally, The "Circus" Gets It Right
Our regular readers know that we love to tackle issues regarding the judiciary. And it doesn’t matter the federal court. We’ve taken on cases from the Supreme Court right down to District Courts. We’re not afraid to touch on anything of importance. Normally, the court that catches the majority of our flack ends up being the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals. The "Circus," as we affectionately call it, gives us laughs, and gives us tears. Now, I’d like to praise it because the Court finally ruled the right way.
I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off of the floor. But it’s true. Read on...
A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to block implementation of a portion of a voter-approved Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the plaintiffs challenging the public benefits provisions of the law had no right to sue.
The law, which appeared on Arizona's 2004 general-election ballot as Proposition 200, bars illegal immigrants from receiving certain public benefits and makes it a crime for public employees to fail to report undocumented immigrants who seek the benefits outlined in the legislation. A separate provision requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
The plaintiffs had asked the appellate court to rule that U.S. District Judge David Bury had abused his discretion by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction until a trial is held to determine whether the benefits prohibition is constitutional.
The provisions dealing with voters weren't affected by the challenge.
The three-judge panel's order said the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated they were hurt by implementation of the law or been charged or specifically threatened with prosecution. Also, there was no allegation of a First Amendment injury that would lower the legal hurdle in front of the right to sue, the order said.Supporters argued that the initiative approved by voters in November was needed because Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point on the country's southern border, spends millions of dollars annually to provide food stamps, welfare and other social services to illegal immigrants.
They said the law would help curtail fraud by requiring people to produce proof of immigration status when obtaining certain government services, and would punish state workers who ignore illegal applicants. They also maintained it would safeguard the election system.The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund appealed Bury's order and argued that the law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it usurps the federal government's power over immigration and naturalization.
Bury ruled that the plaintiffs had little chance of success in their lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality.
Marcie and I live in Arizona, and both of us voted for this ballot initiative. So did about 70-75% of the state. And I’m happy to say that it’s about time that the voices of the people were heard by the judiciary. States rights has been a touchy subject for a few, and here it’s no different. I have heard plenty of people state that regardless of the vote tally, the measures to curb what illegal aliens receive at the burden of the taxpayers shouldn’t be enforced.
For those people, I have to ask them something quite simple: What part of illegal do you not understand? These people either sneak into our country or overstay visas and green cards. They sit back and reap the rewards of being here without ever being a citizen. For the PC-driven world, it’s a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy with determining who is here legally or not. Those in an official capacity are afraid that some illegal alien will file a discrimination lawsuit.
This is not how it’s supposed to be. These people are here illegally. They deserve no benefits, nor do provisions under the Constitution apply to them. They have no rights. None. We’re a tolerant society, and we have been thus far, to a fault, with these people. It’s time to implement this change so we can not only save ourselves of drowning under the deluge of the illegal immigration. This is as much a matter of national security, which the federal government has still not taken seriously enough, as it is an economic matter.
A quick check of the facts regarding Arizona alone shows that close to $1.3 billion was lost in medical revenues alone as people never paid their bills. Add that to the burgeoning welfare costs in terms of taxpayer-subsidized health care, housing, and food stamps. And what do we receive in return? Nothing. These immigrants make little effort to learn our language and culture, yet it was seen as an affront back in the day if an immigrant didn’t do their best to assimilate. Is that so much to ask? We’re not asking them to disavow their own personal heritage. We’re asking them to assimilate themselves to life in the United States, and to come here legally—through the proper process.
Until they understand this, and begin to change their ways when emigrating here, then we have to install provisions into the laws to protect this nation, and our state. Prop. 200 did this, and the Hispanic groups opposed to it still claim it violates the civil rights of immigrants. No, it doesn’t, because the people it is targeting are those here illegally. The ones that don’t belong here because their immigration to this nation was done through illegal means. It’s not that I don’t feel for these people. Many people come to America from nations so poor and destitute that a cardboard box on Broadway would seem like a 5-Star hotel, at times. I get it. If I were living in a nation like Mexico, or Iran, or Chad, or Peru, I’d want to come to America, too. However, I’d do it legally. I’d migrate to the US, and become a citizen.
So, kudos to the Circus for a good job. Yes, they’re planning to appeal it to the Supreme Court, but the benefit is that the high court could refuse to hear it. Personally, I’d like to see them take it up. A ruling—a precedent—will be set that, hopefully, will nix this idea that illegal immigrants rank on the same level as a citizen of this nation.
Publius II
Our regular readers know that we love to tackle issues regarding the judiciary. And it doesn’t matter the federal court. We’ve taken on cases from the Supreme Court right down to District Courts. We’re not afraid to touch on anything of importance. Normally, the court that catches the majority of our flack ends up being the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals. The "Circus," as we affectionately call it, gives us laughs, and gives us tears. Now, I’d like to praise it because the Court finally ruled the right way.
I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off of the floor. But it’s true. Read on...
A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to block implementation of a portion of a voter-approved Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the plaintiffs challenging the public benefits provisions of the law had no right to sue.
The law, which appeared on Arizona's 2004 general-election ballot as Proposition 200, bars illegal immigrants from receiving certain public benefits and makes it a crime for public employees to fail to report undocumented immigrants who seek the benefits outlined in the legislation. A separate provision requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
The plaintiffs had asked the appellate court to rule that U.S. District Judge David Bury had abused his discretion by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction until a trial is held to determine whether the benefits prohibition is constitutional.
The provisions dealing with voters weren't affected by the challenge.
The three-judge panel's order said the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated they were hurt by implementation of the law or been charged or specifically threatened with prosecution. Also, there was no allegation of a First Amendment injury that would lower the legal hurdle in front of the right to sue, the order said.Supporters argued that the initiative approved by voters in November was needed because Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point on the country's southern border, spends millions of dollars annually to provide food stamps, welfare and other social services to illegal immigrants.
They said the law would help curtail fraud by requiring people to produce proof of immigration status when obtaining certain government services, and would punish state workers who ignore illegal applicants. They also maintained it would safeguard the election system.The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund appealed Bury's order and argued that the law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it usurps the federal government's power over immigration and naturalization.
Bury ruled that the plaintiffs had little chance of success in their lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality.
Marcie and I live in Arizona, and both of us voted for this ballot initiative. So did about 70-75% of the state. And I’m happy to say that it’s about time that the voices of the people were heard by the judiciary. States rights has been a touchy subject for a few, and here it’s no different. I have heard plenty of people state that regardless of the vote tally, the measures to curb what illegal aliens receive at the burden of the taxpayers shouldn’t be enforced.
For those people, I have to ask them something quite simple: What part of illegal do you not understand? These people either sneak into our country or overstay visas and green cards. They sit back and reap the rewards of being here without ever being a citizen. For the PC-driven world, it’s a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy with determining who is here legally or not. Those in an official capacity are afraid that some illegal alien will file a discrimination lawsuit.
This is not how it’s supposed to be. These people are here illegally. They deserve no benefits, nor do provisions under the Constitution apply to them. They have no rights. None. We’re a tolerant society, and we have been thus far, to a fault, with these people. It’s time to implement this change so we can not only save ourselves of drowning under the deluge of the illegal immigration. This is as much a matter of national security, which the federal government has still not taken seriously enough, as it is an economic matter.
A quick check of the facts regarding Arizona alone shows that close to $1.3 billion was lost in medical revenues alone as people never paid their bills. Add that to the burgeoning welfare costs in terms of taxpayer-subsidized health care, housing, and food stamps. And what do we receive in return? Nothing. These immigrants make little effort to learn our language and culture, yet it was seen as an affront back in the day if an immigrant didn’t do their best to assimilate. Is that so much to ask? We’re not asking them to disavow their own personal heritage. We’re asking them to assimilate themselves to life in the United States, and to come here legally—through the proper process.
Until they understand this, and begin to change their ways when emigrating here, then we have to install provisions into the laws to protect this nation, and our state. Prop. 200 did this, and the Hispanic groups opposed to it still claim it violates the civil rights of immigrants. No, it doesn’t, because the people it is targeting are those here illegally. The ones that don’t belong here because their immigration to this nation was done through illegal means. It’s not that I don’t feel for these people. Many people come to America from nations so poor and destitute that a cardboard box on Broadway would seem like a 5-Star hotel, at times. I get it. If I were living in a nation like Mexico, or Iran, or Chad, or Peru, I’d want to come to America, too. However, I’d do it legally. I’d migrate to the US, and become a citizen.
So, kudos to the Circus for a good job. Yes, they’re planning to appeal it to the Supreme Court, but the benefit is that the high court could refuse to hear it. Personally, I’d like to see them take it up. A ruling—a precedent—will be set that, hopefully, will nix this idea that illegal immigrants rank on the same level as a citizen of this nation.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home