Federal Judge Blocks Portion of Georgia Immigration Law

Billnew · #1 28th June 2011, 07:25 AM

Federal Judge Blocks Portion of Georgia Immigration Law - FoxNews.com

Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification.

Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.

If the federal goverment actually did their job, states wouldn't have to pass laws like this.

Doing our part to help law enforcement is everyones duty. They are not enforcing immigration laws, they are supporting federal law enforcement in doing their job. (that they refuse to do.)

Willfully or knowingly transport or harbor a criminal should not be a crime?
States have the right to make laws to require people to act according to the laws of our country. If you rent a apartment or home to an illegal you are supporting that criminals activity. If you give an illegal a ride, you are enabling his/her criminal activity, and making it harder to catch the criminal.

Entering into the USA without proper authority is illegal. If you encourage illegal activity you should face punishment.

All states are having trouble supporting all the citizens needing handouts, most are borrowing money and handing it to the needy. Why should we share the borrowed money with people that entered our country illegally?

Most nations have immigration laws, and enforce them. We need to start enforcing our laws, and punish those that exploit the desperate people crossing the border.

I think the best way to discourage employers from hiring illegals, is to make employers pay back wages equal to the going rate(with benefits and all required deductions taken out too.) of thier job since the first day the illegal started working. They would lose all benefit of hiring illegals and would be out a lump sum of money. The illegal gets sent home with a wad of cash, but when they return they will not be welcome.

Illegals are costing states millions, if the federal goverment refuses to do their job, then the states must find a way to fix the problem.

Umaro · #2 28th June 2011, 08:05 AM

Why do I keep seeing the claim that the Federal government isn't doing it's job on illegal immigration? The current administration is deporting in record numbers, is focusing on those illegals with additional crimes under their belts, and is cracking down harder on those who hire illegals than any president in the last 60 years at least. You can disagree with this administrations other policies if you want, but it at least deserves credit on the immigration issue.

Fenny the Fox · #3 28th June 2011, 08:58 AM

The Georgia law (speaking as a GA citizen) takes parts a bit too far. While it is not wrong to verify immigration status (it shouldn't be, that is not profiling, that is intelligence), i find it absurd that one could not transport an immigrant "knowingly and willingly". Both of the these claims are to made by a court, and could too easily be misconstrued.
Also, I believe in human decency. I am going to help out a friend and give him/her a ride or a room no matter what the status of immigration. I am not likely to ask the status, either. I honestly don't care, so long as they are not committing another crime.

That being said, where I to give that ride and break a minor traffic code and be pulled over, I could be charged additionally with "concealing or harboring" offense. Regardless of whether I was actually aware of immigration status, as that could be easily misconstrued and it would be my word versus the "law's word" [if you get my drift].

The rest of the , as far as I can see [and I have read it] does not seem to overstep bounds. It merely reiterates federal and state policies already in place.

mpok1519 · #4 28th June 2011, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Billnew

If you encourage illegal activity you should face punishment.

No you shouldn't; encouragement of others to break the law isn't breaking the law.

Should I be arrested for advocating cancer patients should smoke pot to alleviate their pain if its the only thing that works regardless of the legal status of the medicine?

Wolseley · #5 28th June 2011, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Umaro

Why do I keep seeing the claim that the Federal government isn't doing it's job on illegal immigration? The current administration is deporting in record numbers, is focusing on those illegals with additional crimes under their belts, and is cracking down harder on those who hire illegals than any president in the last 60 years at least. You can disagree with this administrations other policies if you want, but it at least deserves credit on the immigration issue.

Just wondering if you have any cites for this?

revanneosl · #6 28th June 2011, 04:38 PM

Obama sets deportation record | Phoenix Business Journal

freezerman2000 · #7 28th June 2011, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Fenny the Fox

The Georgia law (speaking as a GA citizen) takes parts a bit too far. While it is not wrong to verify immigration status (it shouldn't be, that is not profiling, that is intelligence), i find it absurd that one could not transport an immigrant "knowingly and willingly". Both of the these claims are to made by a court, and could too easily be misconstrued.
Also, I believe in human decency. I am going to help out a friend and give him/her a ride or a room no matter what the status of immigration. I am not likely to ask the status, either. I honestly don't care, so long as they are not committing another crime.

That being said, where I to give that ride and break a minor traffic code and be pulled over, I could be charged additionally with "concealing or harboring" offense. Regardless of whether I was actually aware of immigration status, as that could be easily misconstrued and it would be my word versus the "law's word" [if you get my drift].

The rest of the , as far as I can see [and I have read it] does not seem to overstep bounds. It merely reiterates federal and state policies already in place.

Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime.

This has got me confused..Is it while YOU are committing another crime, or while the illegal immigrants are committing another crime?..The wording is rather vague.
Being in America illegally is already committing a crime.

Fenny the Fox · #8 28th June 2011, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by freezerman2000

Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime.

This has got me confused..Is it while YOU are committing another crime, or while the illegal immigrants are committing another crime?..The wording is rather vague.
Being in America illegally is already committing a crime.

I took it, and don't quote me as being right since I am certainly no lawyer, that it was meaning "while you (+them, by default) committed another crime". Like, if you get stopped for a busted tail light and they realize that person is an illegal.
A little vague on the details, the wording of that law is.

freezerman2000 · #9 28th June 2011, 06:45 PM

Is a minor traffic violation construed as a crime?..It's not even a misdemeanor on a criminal back ground check..DUI is, but to my knowledge, that's the least serious misdemeanor when it comes to traffic infractions.
The wording in the article has got me... ing.

Fenny the Fox · #10 28th June 2011, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by freezerman2000

Is a minor traffic violation construed as a crime?..It's not even a misdemeanor on a criminal back ground check..DUI is, but to my knowledge, that's the least serious misdemeanor when it comes to traffic infractions.
The wording in the article has got me... ing.

That they are not misdemeanors or do not appear on a record afterward doesm't stop them pulling you over, forcing breathalizers, detaining you, searching your vehicle, etc. if they feel there is any reason to do so. Whether it is technically a misdemeanor or not, traffic violations are generally still considered a "crime" by a legal definiton (they are an infraction of a law and can result in fines or other punishment, is that not a crime?) and routinely become more so in the presence of other circumstances - possibility of drug possession, drinking, and, now, an illegal being possibly in the car.

Maybe I am being a bit paranoid, but I still find ridiculous to pass such a vague law that will result in a lose of human decency and respect [won't even give a ride to someone for fear of the law].