Legal challenge to Arizona law on illegals dismissed
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Apparently those that would like to provide safe havens, including government hand-outs, to illegal aliens are finding themselves losers in Arizona.
Headline will be linked. Please remember to thank the judges involved in the decision for making the right choice, and for protecting the rights of U.S. citizens, rather than worrying over the potential loss of benefits for people that shouldn't even be in the country to begin with.
Legal challenge to Arizona law on illegals dismissed
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 11, 2005
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 200 in Arizona, which prohibits illegal aliens from receiving some public benefits, has been dismissed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The suit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Friendly House, a Phoenix-based nonprofit social service agency, was dismissed by U.S. Appeals Court Judges Alfred T. Goodwin, Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Thomas M. Reavley, sitting as a visiting judge. The panel said the plaintiffs had not shown they had been injured by implementation of the new law.
"The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The district court record reveals that there was no case or controversy between plaintiffs and the state of Arizona when pleadings were before the district court," the panel said.
Proposition 200, which passed in the November elections with 56 percent of the vote, requires state and local government employees to verify the immigration status of those seeking public benefits they are prohibited from receiving under federal law and to report to federal immigration authorities any applicant who is in violation of U.S. immigration law.
It also subjects state employees to criminal charges if they fail to report illegals, and requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
MALDEF and Friendly House attorneys had sought to block implementation of the initiative, arguing in federal court in Arizona that unless the new law was overturned, it would "jeopardize the health and well-being of families and children who depend on public benefits for their basic necessities."
In also seeking a restraining order, MALDEF attorney Hector O. Villagra said the proposition would "cut off all state services, including education, medical care and police and fire services, to all individuals who are unable to immediately provide adequate proof of their U.S. citizenship or residence."
But U.S. District Judge David C. Bury in Tucson, Ariz., refused to block implementation of the law and denied the request for a restraining order, saying the organizations had failed to prove potential harm from enforcement of the initiative -- a position upheld by the appeals court panel.
"Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating an injury-in-fact," the panel said, noting that the plaintiffs did not "articulate a concrete plan to violate Proposition 200, evidence that prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, or a history of past persecution, which clearly cannot be shown here."
In its appeal of the Bury ruling, MALDEF and Friendly House had argued to the appeals court panel that the judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction until a trial was held to determine the law's constitutionality -- a position also rejected by the appeals court.
Since the initiative's enactment, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has implemented the proof of legal status requirements for applicants requesting public benefits and the requirement for proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
... more at linked article
Too bad for MALDEF, but they really deserved to lose here. Them, and their friends in other states (Northern Virginia as a prime example) that do everything possible to support illegal aliens, cry over the lack of support for them, and then basically sneer at the laws of this country while taking hand-outs in the form of free public education, free health care for those that can't afford to pay for it, and use of our roads and services.
Many work at jobs that pay off the books and under the table, which means that any argument that these individuals are tax payers is bogus.
I'm glad that Arizona did something about the problem, and even more glad that the judiciary made the right choice in their decision not to strike down the law. Now hopefully the law will have an impact on helping to slow down the stream of illegals that keep crossing the border while laughing at our immigration laws.
Headline will be linked. Please remember to thank the judges involved in the decision for making the right choice, and for protecting the rights of U.S. citizens, rather than worrying over the potential loss of benefits for people that shouldn't even be in the country to begin with.
Legal challenge to Arizona law on illegals dismissed
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 11, 2005
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 200 in Arizona, which prohibits illegal aliens from receiving some public benefits, has been dismissed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The suit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Friendly House, a Phoenix-based nonprofit social service agency, was dismissed by U.S. Appeals Court Judges Alfred T. Goodwin, Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Thomas M. Reavley, sitting as a visiting judge. The panel said the plaintiffs had not shown they had been injured by implementation of the new law.
"The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The district court record reveals that there was no case or controversy between plaintiffs and the state of Arizona when pleadings were before the district court," the panel said.
Proposition 200, which passed in the November elections with 56 percent of the vote, requires state and local government employees to verify the immigration status of those seeking public benefits they are prohibited from receiving under federal law and to report to federal immigration authorities any applicant who is in violation of U.S. immigration law.
It also subjects state employees to criminal charges if they fail to report illegals, and requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
MALDEF and Friendly House attorneys had sought to block implementation of the initiative, arguing in federal court in Arizona that unless the new law was overturned, it would "jeopardize the health and well-being of families and children who depend on public benefits for their basic necessities."
In also seeking a restraining order, MALDEF attorney Hector O. Villagra said the proposition would "cut off all state services, including education, medical care and police and fire services, to all individuals who are unable to immediately provide adequate proof of their U.S. citizenship or residence."
But U.S. District Judge David C. Bury in Tucson, Ariz., refused to block implementation of the law and denied the request for a restraining order, saying the organizations had failed to prove potential harm from enforcement of the initiative -- a position upheld by the appeals court panel.
"Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating an injury-in-fact," the panel said, noting that the plaintiffs did not "articulate a concrete plan to violate Proposition 200, evidence that prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, or a history of past persecution, which clearly cannot be shown here."
In its appeal of the Bury ruling, MALDEF and Friendly House had argued to the appeals court panel that the judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction until a trial was held to determine the law's constitutionality -- a position also rejected by the appeals court.
Since the initiative's enactment, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has implemented the proof of legal status requirements for applicants requesting public benefits and the requirement for proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
... more at linked article
Too bad for MALDEF, but they really deserved to lose here. Them, and their friends in other states (Northern Virginia as a prime example) that do everything possible to support illegal aliens, cry over the lack of support for them, and then basically sneer at the laws of this country while taking hand-outs in the form of free public education, free health care for those that can't afford to pay for it, and use of our roads and services.
Many work at jobs that pay off the books and under the table, which means that any argument that these individuals are tax payers is bogus.
I'm glad that Arizona did something about the problem, and even more glad that the judiciary made the right choice in their decision not to strike down the law. Now hopefully the law will have an impact on helping to slow down the stream of illegals that keep crossing the border while laughing at our immigration laws.