And a Beseiged USA town that must pay 6 illegals $550,000 for " Discrimination "
http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.military.politics/beseiged_usa_town_must_pay_6_illegals_55...
http://vnboards.ign.com/outpost/b22180/99776284/r99778614/
2007-07-26 11:51:46 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
You can't deny it, it is unconstitutional what Hazleton is trying to do.
But what's not unconstitutional is what New Haven is doing. Most or all cities should follow this example.
But since what's happening in Hazelton, it won't be allowed, then that means no city in the US can do this.
2007-07-26 12:09:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The city should refuse to pay anything and continue enforcing the law as if the Federal Judge had said nothing.
The voters in Farmers Branch, TX had a similar measure on their ballot some months back; the measure won with a clear majority of votes. As soon as the election results had been officially confirmed, a Federal Judge issued a stay, blocking the city from acting on the measure approved by the voters.
Federal Judges, despite the wide powers granted to them, should *NOT* be allowed to overrule the will of the voters. Also, they should *NOT* be allowed to stop laws from being enacted that help deter illegal activity--to do so is to *help* illegal activity continue!
This reminds me--add a new agendum to my own personal platform: begin restricting when and how Federal Judges can ARBITRARILY impose their personal will and views onto the rest of us.
2007-07-26 12:17:43 · answer #2 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
This sounds horrible. Why are illegal aliens being compensated for anything? I'm upset. We need to write the Senators (like Spector) and Congressmen and express our upset about such actions. They do listen, especially if a good number of residents complain about the same thing (major point in their priorities is to get re-elected)
2007-07-26 12:10:14 · answer #3 · answered by marconprograms 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Are we a great country or what. First we allow illegal to sue in federal court, and to make sure that they will not be identified as illegally being in the country which is clearly against the law, we let them be known as John and Mary Doe. Then the courts award them monies even those they never had the right to be here anyway. Will the check be in names of John and Mary Doe.
2007-07-26 11:56:36 · answer #4 · answered by jean 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
He was expected to side with illegals, this will end up in the supreme court next year.
2007-07-26 12:00:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess the judge is like bush, he doesn't believe in the laws or the Constitution of the US.
2007-07-26 12:43:57 · answer #6 · answered by firewomen 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think he should be arrested for aiding and abetting criminal activity, and removed from the bench.
Just like I think anyone in Congress who votes for amnesty of any kind should be kicked out of office immediately...as well as the president. If amnesty passes, then they are criminals.
2007-07-26 11:56:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I already posted about this the judge is right and the plantiffs in question weren't illegal in fact some of them were US citizens.
2007-07-26 11:56:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think it was pretty clear that this law was unconstitutional. I don't know why the city even bothered fighting it. Probably so the mayor can get more votes or something.
2007-07-26 11:57:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
That is some major bull poop right there!
2007-07-26 11:55:19 · answer #10 · answered by ks 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋