« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

When Did Foreign Nations Gain the Right to Tell Us What is Constitutional?

By: lineholder (Diary)  |  June 17th, 2011 at 03:53 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Last month, Gov. Nathan Deal signed a piece of immigration legislation in the state of Georgia that allows police to have the authority to check the immigration status of a criminal suspect who can’t provide an accepted form of identification and to hand these individuals over to federal immigration authorities. The law makes it illegal to transport and/or harbor illegal immigrants, and it also requires many private employers to check the immigration status of newly hired workers on a federal database called E-Verify.

Two weeks ago, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this legislation was filed by civil liberties groups, primarily the ACLU of Georgia. The plaintiffs are appealing this legislation on the basis that they could “face an imminent threat of harm” if the legislation is implemented.

On Wednesday of this week, the nations of Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs

This case is scheduled for a hearing next week. The plaintiffs are requesting that U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash prevent the law from taking effect until the lawsuit has been resolved.

The pernicious poison of the entitlement mentality that has pervaded our society, within the boundaries of our own nation, will be difficult to overcome. And due to the irresponsibility of the federal government and its failure to do what is right by enforcing the law, we now have millions of illegal immigrants in our nation who see themselves as being entitled to the right to come here illegally.

But now we have foreign nations who apparently see themselves as having the right to butt their noses into our legal affairs by trying to tell us what is and is not applicable under the Constitution of the United States? And this is being permitted?

I hope Judge Thrash tells them very firmly to “butt out”. And it won’t bother me one bit at this point whether or not he’s politically correct in his manner of getting this point across.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …including the Constitution, it would appear.

    When they talk about a “living” Constitution, they’re really describing a cancer – which unchecked will kill the host. Bringing foreign nations into our court cases is just another way of breaking down host defenses.

    • lineholder

      the body immune system, civil.

      But I will say this for the judicial branch…given some of the decisions that have been made lately, they don’t seem to be in the mood to tolerate a lot of nonsense and response scathingly to it when it does interfere with judicial business.

      It’s been good to see at least that much of common sense coming from the bench. And I’m hoping we’ll see more of it in response to cases like these.

  • luvnthebigsites

    Judge Thomas Thrash request that: Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru submit for the record THEIR immigration policy’s and procedures as apposed to ours…. (for the record)

    ;)

    • lineholder

      Truth being told, these nations are probably scared to death that we’re going to start sending folks back to the home of their legal national origin. They can’t afford to support them, so they need for the plaintiffs to win this case, so these immigrants can keep coming here.

      • acat

        Follow the money.

        For each of the countries you’ve listed, a whole-number percentage of the GDP comes from … workers in the U.S. sending pay home.

        I don’t have a problem with that .. people should be allowed to send money to help family, after all.

        Where I draw the line is over whether the folks doing the sending are legally entitled to be here in the first place….

        And yeah, they’re very nervous about the gravy train being cut off … social unrest often leads to revolution, eh?

        Mew

    • gekster
      • acat

        …because if we cut off Mexico’s ability to send their unemployed young men north to do jobs gringos won’t do, we’re going to have a civil war on our southern border.

        Want to be involved in four wars at once?

        Mew

        note – cat would be equally happy to see us pull troops home from Germany, South Korea, and Japan to defend the southern border as needed….

        • gekster

          Iraq is winding down, so the majority can come home.
          We never should have gotten involved in Lybia’s civil war.
          (remember when all the Dems decried the involvement in the Iraq and Afghan civil wars)
          Our ROE in Afghanistan will keep us there for a long time, so I don’t see that going down.
          As far as Japan and Germany, I agree. They should be big enough to fend for themselves.
          Korea, not so much. I feel if we pull out, the crazy North will definatly try to over run the peninsula.
          And then put them all on the border with Mexico.
          small military bases, 1,000 soldiers each, 200 miles apart should do it

          • JSobieski

            is so that we can project outward from there. We are not “defending” those countries. We are using them to project forces elsewhere.

            I am not necessarily disagreeing with your proposed course of action, but our bases in those countries have nothing to do with their inability to fend for themselves.

          • gekster
          • acat

            While it’s true that our forces “are not ‘defending’ those countries”, you cannot make the case that South Korea or most of Europe where we have bases are paying nearly the percentage of GDP for defense that they’d be paying if we weren’t there.

            That is, while we’re not there to “defend”, our roles in South Korea and Germany are largely to function as a tripwire and hopefully a delaying factor, with projecting force as a nice benefit .. or as projecting force with the tripwire as a nice beneift, depending on who you ask…

            In either case, though, our presence does allow the local governments to spend less .. and this is to their benefit, not necessarily to ours. It’s a distortion effect to the region and to the point of view here at home that we need to be aware of ….

            IMO, we could pull out most of the regular troops – leaving a cadre and top brass – and rotate through various national guard units while the regulars are on the southern border.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            However, I think that South Korea is materially different than Germany or Japan because neither is a tripwire.

            The argument regarding Germany is particularly weak In the short to medium term, Europe would be just fine spending 1.5% of GDP on the military. What is the closest threat? Russia? Iran?

            If we pulled out of Germany, Germany wouldn’t need to increase its defense spending by a penny. It would however lose prestige on the world stage as they are dependent for their “soft power” upon the hard power of the US.

            As I said above, I am not disagreeing with the proposed course of action.

          • acat

            Germany as a tripwire is a hold-over from the Cold War, when the threat was the Warsaw Pact. It’s not so much a tripwire at this point.

            South Korea is still a tripwire because the North Koreans are sttil bats.

            Japan is a special case. They weren’t really a tripwire until the Chinese became more of a threat. Now, though, they work very nicely with Taiwan and South Korea as a Pacific-wide tripwire…

            And again, I think we’re overall in agreement.

            Oh, and it’s good to see you again. Glad you’ve returned.

            Mew

        • Raven

          of troops have we already pulled from Germany and Japan?
          We pulled so many out of Europe in the last 10 years that we still do not have enough housing for them. Only Afghanistan and Iraq are keeping the housing problems manageable.

          A better idea would be to have NG and Reserve units do their “2 weeks a year” and pre-mob training on the Southern border. Actual missions could be run, by the NG at least, without violating posse comitatus.

    • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

      Excellent suggestion. And he could follow it with a firm ” you.”

      • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

        that was supposed to read “[expletive] you.”

        That’s what I get for using the wrong key.

  • Mike Ferguson
    • Mike Ferguson
  • Mike Ferguson

    I am a Nurse not a Lawyer, though I am proud to say that my baby brother just passed his Bar Exam; GO SCOTT! I have a question, how is it even legal for these countries, some of which are little more than petty dictatorships, to even file a legal brief in an AMERICAN Court, over an AMERICAN court case, involving an AMERICAN state law? This is not a federal statute, which would make more sense to have other nations filing briefs about. So how is this even legal?

    In my uninformed opinion the only thing the judge should do is have one of his aids shred these unrelated documents and enter into the record that some unrelated documents of foreign origin had been destroyed.

    To me this sets a dangerous president (sp?) in that if foreign nations can become involved in the decisions regarding state law what is to stop them from involving themselves on the local level?

    Anyway, I would appreciate an answer from someone with more knowledge than me regarding this issue.

    God Bless American and all of you
    Mike

    • lineholder

      is that it depends on the wording of the amicus brief and whether this was filed as an NGO. Maybe someone like GC will weigh in on this, because I’d like to learn more about the differences and the implications as well.

      But I’m like you on this point…I’d rather that they just stay out of it, and that the judicial branch draws a line on international interference.

      • edintexas

        In the AZ case, the government of Mexico was reported as the entity filing an Amicus brief. Since that Judge allowed the filing, we now have most of Latin America jumping on the bandwagon. If this isn’t slapped down, next we’ll have half the UN nations (or the UN itself) filing Amicus briefs in US Federal Court cases.