« Calling For A Remake | Main | Score One for Common Sense and Less Government »

Keeping Us Safe From People Who Would Stop People At The Border

The usual suspects are rising up against a new Georgia law set to enforce the laws of the United States of America. Thanks, guys!

The Anti-Defamation League, Mexico and the governments of several Central and South American countries filed court papers Wednesday in support of efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new immigration enforcement law.

I don’t usually just post the entire story, but who is joining in with Mexico?

The other countries joining on the side of those seeking a preliminary injunction in the case include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru.

Uh, so basically, South America. Say, which countries are in horrible financial shape?

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Georgia’s law this month and are now asking a judge to halt the measure pending the outcome of their case. They argue the measure - also known as House Bill 87 - is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutional.

“HB 87 substantially and inappropriately burdens the consistent country to country relations between Mexico and the United States of America,” Mexico says in its brief in support of halting the law, “interfering with the strategic diplomatic interests of the two countries and encouraging an imminent threat of state-sanctioned bias or discrimination.”

…by only hiring U.S. citizens people we’ve verified are eligible to work in this country and not here illegally. RACIST!

State officials filed court papers this week seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. They say the law is constitutional and predict it will survive the court challenge. Proponents say the state needed to act to curb illegal immigration because the federal government has failed to secure the nation’s borders. Illegal immigrants, say supporters of Georgia’s new law, are burdening the state’s taxpayer-funded resources, including public schools, jails and hospitals.

Georgia: doing the job that the federal government just won’t do.

Somebody wanna argue with that?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41792.

Comments (15)

The law does not forbid the... (Below threshold)
jim m:

The law does not forbid the hiring of non-citizens. It only forbids the hiring of people in the country illegally. There's a difference.

But the dems don't want to enforce the immigration laws. Wasserman-Schultz thinks that the GOP is crazy wanting to treat breaking the law like a crime.

Wasserman-Schultz ... (Below threshold)
Wasserman-Schultz thinks that the GOP is crazy wanting to treat breaking the law like a crime.

Yep. That's it in a nutshell.

Remember when people were f... (Below threshold)
Arizona CJ:

Remember when people were filing lawsuits demanding to see Obama's birth certificate? The courts often ruled that they had no standing and dismissed the case.

The foreign countries in this lawsuit absolutely have no standing, and these cases should be tossed out with extreme prejudice.

Mexico? LMAOROTF! Maybe t... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Mexico? LMAOROTF! Maybe the State of Georgia will respond by posting the 'immigration laws' of Mexico.

And here I thought just Democrats were hypocrites!

Not surprising.To ... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Not surprising.

To a leftist the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written with invisible ink. Unless of course a particular state is enacting a law they like.

To a leftist federal law also preempts all competing state laws; when they deem it appropriate. If a state were to enact a law they like, however, then the feds should butt out.

In other words, Georgia enacts a law penalizing companies that hire illegal labor. Leftists will sue to block it. Wisconsin enacts a law stripping public sector union members of collective bargaining rights. Leftists will sue to block it. Oregon on the other hand enacts a law allowing physician-assisted suicide. Leftists will fight to enforce it. Nevada enacts a law legalizing medical marijuana. Leftists will fight to enforce it.

Nuanced.

Yes, Mexico should be laugh... (Below threshold)
eaglewingz08:

Yes, Mexico should be laughed out of court. Since when do any of those states have standing to support illegal immigrants. They aren't harmed if their illegal citizens are returned to their nurturing bosoms.

The price of peaches will g... (Below threshold)
Chico:

The price of peaches will go up.

There will be more then pea... (Below threshold)
Gladius:

There will be more then peaches going up, Chico.

The American Civil Liber... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center ... Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru.

Uh, so basically, South America ...

... and other un-American outfits.

Actually, you used to get m... (Below threshold)
Bill Johnson:

Actually, you used to get more peaches from Cali...

But, speaking from Georgia - about time! But the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation is agin it - sort of a McKinney friendly paper, IYKWIMAITYD...

The reason the Latin Americ... (Below threshold)
Stan:

The reason the Latin American countries don't like this law is for one reason only. Money!!! Without the remittance that the illegals send home, there would be no economy in that part of the world. Look at Hugo Chavez did to Venezuela. All of those countries in that list depend on those dollars to offset the worthless money that is used in those countries.

The number of idiotic respo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

The number of idiotic responses by Chico just went up by one.

I would predict the suit wi... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

I would predict the suit will be dismissed. None of the plaintiffs have any standing to sue, and there is no one who can argue they have been harmed by a law which hasn't yet been implemented.

The bigger problem, the one thing which screams out when all these states are passing laws to curtail illegal immigration, is that the federal government has failed miserably in its basic duties.

We do need a comprehensive reform of immigration policy and enforcement, one which recognizes reality as to immigration and deals with those who live here illegally in a reasonable fashion. But the failure of past attempts has led us to the point where enforcement simply MUST be fixed first, before a comprehensive plan can be debated and agreed upon.

The local liberal tv outlet... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

The local liberal tv outlets here in Atlanta are already filling the airwaves with the open borders rhetoric, pity seeking supporters, and anti-law rally events. The "news" is about a tool-rental company whose illegal immigrant business is off by half (tears for the poor man! - not), the cries that employers can't replace their illegal unskilled labor (I know several college kids and adults who are unable to find work of any kind), and, oh, the injustice of it all. The roads will be safer when the illegals driving drunk are gone, and fewer Georgia families will live the horror of having loved ones killed by them. The unskilled American youths and adults in need of work will be able to find more jobs, since employers may actually have to deal with a work force they can't bully, threaten, and cheat. Fewer 3rd world communicable diseases will be brought to your neighborhood, infecting your friends and family and driving up the cost of medical care. The cost to taxpayers of schooling the children of illegals will be eliminated, and the dumbing down of the education to accommodate them will improve the learning of the children of Georgia citizens. The General Assembly and Governor Deal did the Georgia citizens a big solid with this law. I'll pick my own peaches, thank you very much.

A recent Supreme Court ruli... (Below threshold)
Ken in Camarillo:

A recent Supreme Court ruling on an Arizona law made it clear that a state law that is consistent with federal law will not be considered in conflict with the federal law and thus will not be overturned. They said when determining if a state law conflicts with federal law, the bar will be high.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy