Any noticable effects of 1804 yet?

[Neptune]

[EDIT]

[Neptune]

[EDIT]

[iplaw]

[EDIT]

[Hometown]

I would like to address two issues:

First, the issue of undocumented workers being illegal.

It has been a common practice over the past 100 years for the United States to rely on migrant labor from outside of our country.  With the exception of the guest worker program during part of the last century, we have always winked at infractions of our immigration laws so that we could have the labor we need.

Today's undocumented worker is following what has become in practice a routine procedure.  To suddenly brand these people as illegal when they have for generations enabled us to get the job done is disrespectful of their many contributions to our nation.

Second, Tulsa police are insisting that they are only deporting felons but we have heard several reports from friends that people who are guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic infraction are being deported.  

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

And if that's the argument you're hanging your hat on you can expect this law to go nowhere in a hurry.

By law, you mean 1804?  That's always been part of the problem of this law.  It's how do you implement it, without trumping Federal law.

There will be many challenges to this.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

And if that's the argument you're hanging your hat on you can expect this law to go nowhere in a hurry.

By law, you mean 1804?  That's always been part of the problem of this law.  It's how do you implement it, without trumping Federal law.

There will be many challenges to this.

I expect as much.  Every immigration atty in Oklahoma wants to be know as the guy that kills 1804.  

I don't see 1804 as violating any Federal law.  What actions do you see violate Federal law and why?

[iplaw]

quote:First, the issue of undocumented workers being illegal.

Let's start here.  Could you please cite me the statute or law that grants someone the status of "undocumented worker" apart from being illegal?  IOW, how is one simultaneously illegal and legal at the same time?

[Hometown]

Federal law is controlling.  It is superior to state law.  You know that Iplaw.  Neptune is correct.

[Neptune]

This is the first one I've seen.  If the State asks about immigration status, does it violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination?  It's probably the first serious challenge.

And then, what is the basis for asking in the first place?  Is it purely race-based?  That's more of a Civil Liberties question.  That'll be later, there's not enough big cases yet.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Federal law is controlling.  It is superior to state law.  You know that Iplaw.  Neptune is correct.

Speak of that which you know, whatever that is.  Statements like the one above shows very little understanding of the doctrine of Federal preemption and current application.

Now go back and answer my question please.

[iplaw]

quote:This is the first one I've seen.  If the State asks about immigration status, does it violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination?  

It doesn't, as I understand it, violate the 5th Amendment (I.E. an employer).  Compelling them to give their status is illegal, but detaining them until they can be questioned by ICE or, alternatively if the police are ICE certified, acting under ICE authority granted them by Federal executive is legal.

Even the 3rd circuit has even upheld deportation based partly upon illegals who plead the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid disclosing illegal status.

Persuasive case law doesn't bode well for the anti-1804 crowd on this issue.

Next up....

[Neptune]

No, why bother?

Your argument is basically going to boil down to they aren't legally supposed to be here, so they have no constitutional rights.  Which a civil court wouldn't know, unless they potentially violated the 5th Amendment.

How a civil or state court handles constitutional rights, and can it violate those rights in regards to illegal aliens, or do illegal aliens present an exception for civil courts?  Can courts discriminate, asking questions of one ethnicity and not another?  That's all to be determined.

Like I said, this is the first serious challenge I've seen.  And it may not be all that serious, we'll see.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

No, why bother?

Your argument is basically going to boil down to they aren't legally supposed to be here, so they have no constitutional rights.  Which a civil court wouldn't know, unless they potentially violated the 5th Amendment.

How a civil or state court handles constitutional rights, and can it violate those rights in regards to illegal aliens, or do illegal aliens present an exception for civil courts?  Can courts discriminate, asking questions of one ethnicity and not another?  That's all to be determined.

Like I said, this is the first serious challenge I've seen.  And it may not be all that serious, we'll see.

Go back and re-read my post.  I'm saying that there have been numerous challenges vis-a-vis the 5th amendment and illegal status, and ALL have resulted in a negative outcome for the illegal worker, from cases denying employment benefits to illegals, to cases involving deportation from refusal to admit illegal status.

I didn't want to type a 500 word post to get it across.  Bottom line, this has been used numerous times in other Federal circuits with a ZERO rate of success.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Even the 3rd circuit has even upheld deportation based partly upon illegals who plead the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid disclosing illegal status.

Again, that's not the point.

If you plead the 5th, and you're found out to be illegal, you can still be deported.  Wow, what a shocker.

Can a civil or state court force you to self-incriminate?  That's the question.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Even the 3rd circuit has even upheld deportation based partly upon illegals who plead the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid disclosing illegal status.

Again, that's not the point.

If you plead the 5th, and you're found out to be illegal, you can still be deported.  Wow, what a shocker.

Can a civil or state court force you to self-incriminate?  That's the question.

First off, no one is FORCING anyone to self-incriminate.  Pleading the 5th though will increase your chances of being scrutinized by the federales or state actors working under the authority of the Feds, which has already been held to be constitutional by the 3rd circuit.

State officials operating under mandates from federal agencies by the power of the Executive are NOT illegal.  The Executive branch can enforce the laws as they see fit.  In this case, they happen to be enforcing them via State actors trained by Federal agencies.