Federal Judge Blocks Ala. Illegal Immigration Law

Jay Reeves, Yahoo! News, August 29, 2011

A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration, ruling Monday that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the Obama administration, church leaders and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional.

The brief order by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn means the law won’t take effect as scheduled on Thursday. The ruling was cheered by opponents who have compared the law to old Jim Crow-era statutes against racial integration.

But Blackburn didn’t address whether the law is constitutional, and she could still let all or parts of the law take effect later. The judge said she will issue a longer ruling by Sept. 28.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Question Diversity

    As in the case of Arizona’s SB 1070, this is the beginning of the injunctive proceedings, not the Constitutional proceedings.

    Related news:

    http://goo.gl/6tuLI

  • Preparation H-Bomb

    Could someone please explain to me again why ILLEGAL immigrants have any rights at all in this country?????

  • Anonymous

    Wasn’t this roughly the reason the American Revolution started?

    Just asking…

  • SF Paul

    This law makes it a crime to give a job or place to live to a criminal who deliberately, intentionally broke the US law. How can anyone say that this is not a good law? These people are criminals!

  • rockman

    Imagine the pressure on the judge to tow the party line and support the illegals in taking over the country. Years ago my father did criminal investigations in Calif and he often talked to hispanic gang leaders in San Quentin who told him that they were coming to take over the southwest and return it to Mexico. the poor would be pushed across the border and flood the southwest pushing out the white population. achieving dominance they would then take the land back to Mexico and to the control of the gangs of course. It would seem that Obama is part of this plan for some reason. Obama was raised in third world countries and does not respect the history of the US except to denounce it as racist.

  • patthemick

    Well considering how the law simply enforces border controls the government wont enforce means the judge really has to decide whether they want a flood of illegals or not. If we take all the incentives away from the illegals coming here we would of course have fewer illegals.

  • SKIP

    SO! as usual, ONE single, self opinionated, liberal, do gooder judge in the Obamuslim’s pocket can over rule the wishes of the entire population of a sovereign state!!!! Why have votes then, let’s just ask her if Obama would allow it and save all the paper and trouble of voting.

  • Kingoldby

    Why is it considered normal and acdeptable for a Judge to decide whether or not laws passed by democratically elected representatives of the people are legitimate?

    How is that democracy? How is that not a despotism?

  • Anonymous

    Formal law school will be remembered as the institution that ruined the West. Every poisonous idea and “interpretation” of law has come out of those rotten camps.

    The late 19th century “progressive era” gave us those abominations, and every other educational monster. The Magna Carta of 1215 ought to have been good enough for anyone.

  • Uniculturalist

    This is typical. Use the courts to thwart the will of the people, especially if the law is beneficial to the common good.

    Impeach this judge and remove her from office.

  • Anonymous

    This is just another example of why we, as the White race in America, will never survive. ALL of our perverted laws and Judges will overturn anything we try to do to save ourselves from genocide in our own land.. This judge will deem this “unconstituional” also. Our laws and judges are all corrupted to “order” our demise.

  • Anonymous

    The sun is shining this morning as I read this article. I suddenly have a moment of utmost clarity, that transcends all the reasoned arguments we’ve all been making against the sort of thing described in this article. I see the inevitable: conservative whites must somehow start over by creating a new nation, based on what once was this nation, but no longer is. No more federal judges, no more Obamas, no more wasting time arguing with deluded fools with a racial agenda. The time is drawing closer. By 2020, the time will have arrived.

  • Anonymous

    This Fed judge is a black female or a lesbian or both. Surprise surprise. Unsurprisingly she is both and graduated from Tuscaloosa and also unsurprisingly was appointed in 1991 by none other than a Bush of course. Equally unsurprisingly Obama kept her on and didnt try to replace her.

  • Anonymous

    Read the law? She probably never read it her life so why start now? Buying time or just trying to look good?

  • Anonymous

    Keep it up, Jurisprudence.

    With every decision of this type you prove to us that the law isn’t worth anything to normal people. We vote, and it’s nullified. We elect politicians, and their laws are overturned. We participate in referendums, and our winning positions are routinely cast out.

    The peasants are out there sharpening their pitchforks.

  • flyingtiger

    Following this judges logic, laws against murder, robbery and rape are unconstitutional.

  • Anonymous

    What destroyed all the anti affirmative action state laws was the fact that federal law supersedes state law. Anti immigration state laws are superseded by federal law which mandates unlimited immigration both legal and illegal.

  • Anonymous

    poster 5 Rockman

    Thank you. It makes a lot of things clear. Back 30 years ago the mexican goverment, such as it was was still in control of mexico. I remember when Pete Wilson was Mayor of San Diego. He claimed that much of the crime in San Diego was committed by mexicans who came over the border to commit their robberies in San Diego USA because:

    1. Rich San Diegoans worth robbing did not surround their homes with high walls.

    2. Rich San Diegoans worth robbing ran around town like everyone else instead of being accompanied by body guards.

    3. Most important, if caught the mexican robbers were just sent back over the border after a few days in a nice clean jail instead of a diseased filthy place where their families had to bring them meals.

    Liberals scorned this statement. But Wilson provided proof with 5 years of crime statistics that proved mexican day trippers committed much of the crime in San Diego.

    What a country we are. The lowest mexican criminals from primitive tribes with low 80’s IQs have taken over the southwest and are spreading north and east.

  • margaret

    8 — Kingoldby wrote at 7:27 AM on August 30:

    “Why is it considered normal and acdeptable for a Judge to decide whether or not laws passed by democratically elected representatives of the people are legitimate?

    How is that democracy? How is that not a despotism?”

    It is despotism. English common law is judicial despotism.

    It is our heritage of English common law. It was ingrained in the German and Celtic ancestors of the English for thousands of years. It arrived with them in England. It was brought to America.

    It is the worst legal system in the world.

    English common law means that English laws were created and invented by individual English Judges. The Judges were the elite. Usually they combined the role of Judge, chief land owner of the area, Earl, Baron whatever, head of the militia, cousin of the King and basically unelected ruler of maybe half a county.

    So they made up any law they wished and there was nothing anyone, including the King could do about it.

    That is the system we have today. Judges, not legislatures or initiatives passed by wide majorities of voters make the law.

    That is it, Judge made law and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

    Think about the insanity of Judge made English common law.

    1956 Brown vs Topeka. All children of whatever race must attend the school within whose district boundaries they live.

    1960 All children must be put on buses and send as much as 60 miles away to schools out of their district boundaries. Billions of dollars must be spent on this.

    The founding fathers knew what they were doing. They were the elite. A list of the signers of the declaration is a list of the richest people in the colonies.

    Like their fellow masons of the French revolution a few years later, they were expert propagandists. Freedom for the common man, democracy, an elected President,not an inherited King!

    The 3 powers, executive, legislative and judicial are equal in the constitution. But the founders never intended it to be that way. They intended for the judiciary to rule all along. As soon as possible the Judges ruled on Marbury vs. Madison 1803.

    Marbury vs Madison did it. It abolished separation of powers and equality between judiciary,executive and legislative and made the judiciary supreme. Including over the president.

    Marbury vs Madison’s core was that the Supreme court had power over the President. The president has to obey any supreme court ruling. That common law rule has been followed ever since. The founders planned that way, that the Supreme court would rule.

    Before I get any patriotic nonsense and paste and clips from wikipedia the most liberal biased inaccurate resource around I’d like to remind patriots of one thing.

    As soon as the revolution was over the founders refused to tax themselves, the ones who made and benefited from the revolution to pay the huge debts they incurred. The French treasury provided all the money for our revolution.

    Instead the founders decided to tax the hardscrabble farmers of the frontier with a tax on whiskey, their one and only cash crop that could be transported through the forests and mountains.

    Washington led more troops to put down the whiskey rebellion than were ever led against the British during the revolution.

    We have been ruled by Judges since 1803. It will not change.

    They can and will do anything they want. The supreme court rules the presidency as much as it rules us average Americans.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalbanking122.htm Here are a couple of websites to go to. That first one is long with lots of info. Go to youtube and watch “fall of the republic” next one would be to go to http:// cofcc.org/ and look at the one titled”Obama looting social security to build extravagant welfare housing for immigrants”,then go to http://www.nsm88.org and look at story titled : “in defense of white America rally”. My contributation to this subject.

  • Anonymous

    Federal law supersedes state law. In the case of immigration, state and local authorities federal judges have decided that state and local authorities may not enforce federal laws.

    State and local authorities may enforce other federal laws however. Although the FBI has jurisdiction over kidnapping and bank robberies, a city cop can arrest a bank robber or kidnapper. A local inspector or police officer can close down a dangerous toxic site before even calling the EPA.

    When I worked in city jail in the early 1980’s we ran all the IDs and called immigration about illegals that were arrested. Every morning Monday through Friday immigration came in around 9/30 and took away maybe 5 to 15 illegals that had been arrested the day before.

    That stopped in the mid 1990’s.

  • 2AMD

    This administration encourages illegals!

    I was a security supervisor at a military base for 7 years (2004-2011).

    We would inspect vehicles and trucks coming in and validate the identity all all visitors. Needless to say, many contractors tried to sneak in illegals (usually Mexican). Some had fake green cards, others had long expired. At any rate, the protocol was always to detain them, contact ICE and wait for them to take custody.

    During the Bush administration, I NEVER was told by ICE to let them go. Not once! As soon as Obozo took over, it was rare to them to tell us to hold them. I would guess that 90% of the time they would tell us to release them.

    The worst one I remember was a guy Salvadorean that handed us immigration paperwork that was created in Microsoft Word. No seal, signatures, nothing. When one of my officers handed it to me, I laughed it was so bad.

    I called ICE and explained the blatant forgery. He told me “no one was available to pick him up” and “he probably just lost his original forms”

    What a joke!

  • Bridge

    Sorry, I have to throw this out there…Does America still have a white, male judge anywhere? Everytime I read an article that references a judge, it’s a woman. Every time I see one on TV, it’a a minority. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed this trend?

  • Kingoldby

    Margaret, that is most certainly NOT English Common Law. In English Common Law the Judges are subservient to the elected representatives of the people. That is very much not the case in America today.

    A return to English Common Law would mean Judges NOT being able to overturn laws made by the voters representatives.

  • Abdul

    I dare say…that none of you realize the scheme of things to come.

    I dare say that…soon….all of us will be involved in a monumental struggle of survival.

  • SKIP

    “A list of the signers of the declaration is a list of the richest people in the colonies”

    I read a book once relating the conditions of those very signators of the DoI and sadly, almost every one died poor, impoverished or was executed! Todays’ politicians are taking GREAT pains to see that NO MATTER WHAT, that does not happen to them.

  • True Blue

    “Federal law supersedes state law. In the case of immigration, state and local authorities federal judges have decided that state and local authorities may not enforce federal laws.

    State and local authorities may enforce other federal laws however. Although the FBI has jurisdiction over kidnapping and bank robberies, a city cop can arrest a bank robber or kidnapper. A local inspector or police officer can close down a dangerous toxic site before even calling the EPA.”

    Well said, thank you. Now all we need is one righteous Sherrif or Mayor to publicly state that all local laws that are already Federal problems will be (temporarily) stricken as unenforcable and their departments will no longer arrest or prosecute cases for any ‘Federal’ matters. So if there is a drug deal involving shooting at the corner; here’s the number for the Alabama office of the DEA and the BATFE; if there is a hostage taken, the department’s officers will sit and watch the FBI do ‘their’ job, but will not lift a finger to assist until a strictly ‘local’ law is broken.

    “… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

  • Anonymous

    In other diversity news

    SFGate.com ^ | 8/30/11 | AP

    Officials with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration say they took down several bosses from the Sinaloa Cartel in a move they say “decimated” a Utah-based cell of the Mexican crime ring. At least seven arrests came Tuesday .. part of an 18-month investigation that has yielded more than 30 arrests in Utah, California and Nevada. Authorities have also seized more than 30 pounds of methamphetamine, 200 pounds of marijuana, a kilogram of heroin and a kilogram of cocaine, as well as more than $322,000 and guns.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Federal law supersedes state law

    Don’t give up yet.

    Thomas Jefferson argued that states SHOULD have the ultimate say in constitutional matters and that states SHOULD ban certain federal laws inside their borders.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that lefties in the media or the tyrants in DC have veto power over what the White majority approves?

    There are some encouraging signs as Yahoo reports (sorry, article was taken down):

    Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are discussing the creation of a joint compact, like a treaty, opposing the 2010 health care law. Idaho is considering a plan to nullify it, as is Montana. Examples (in Montana) include a bill making it illegal to enforce some federal gun laws in the state, forcing FBI agents to get a sheriff’s OK before arresting anyone, creating armed civil militias and establishing state authority over federal regulation of greenhouse gasses.

    Backers of nullification say they can get the federal government to back down off a law if enough states band together against it. They point to the REAL ID act — a Bush-era plan to assert federal control over state identifications as a way to combat terrorism. The law has been put in limbo after 25 states adopted legislation opposing it.

    An old lefty trick is to flood the courts with lawsuits, tying up time and resources in the hopes that one or two more more would be ruled in their favor. The Feds can’t block all of these new laws with lawsuits; those that are will anger Whites even further.

    Bon

    Nullification is not about splitting this union apart,’ freshman Rep. Derek Skees said. ‘Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: ‘That is not right.’ …

  • margaret

    24 — Kingoldby wrote at 6:41 PM on August 30:

    Margaret, that is most certainly NOT English Common Law. In English Common Law the Judges are subservient to the elected representatives of the people.

    Read some history. There were no, absolutely no elected representatives of the people in England when English common law developed.

    Look up a few facts re English parliamentary history from about 1500 to 1900. Learn how the system went from an assembly of Lords to elected representatives. There must be a law school in your area. Go there and ask for a book about the history of English common law.

    Judge made it up as they went along.

    I do not post anything I do not know to be a fact. Unlike others, I do not get my facts from wikepedia or some Jr high social studies book.

  • Anonymous

    From Utah

    “Officials with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration say they took down several bosses from the Sinaloa Cartel in a move they say “decimated” a Utah-based cell of the Mexican crime ring.

    At least seven arrests came Tuesday after a raid at a home in South Jordan, a raid at the South Salt Lake restaurant Mi Ranchito, and a stop along I-15 in southern Utah.

    The arrests come as part of an 18-month investigation that has yielded more than 30 arrests in Utah, California and Nevada. Authorities have also seized more than 30 pounds of methamphetamine, 200 pounds of marijuana, a kilogram of heroin and a kilogram of cocaine, as well as more than $322,000 and guns.

    DEA Special Agent Frank Smith says evidence may also lead to arrests in Mexico.”

    Guess the Mormon missionaries so enthusiastic about bring in mexicans to convert didn’t succeed with this group.

  • Anonymous

    24 — Kingoldby wrote at 6:41 PM on August 30:

    Margaret, that is most certainly NOT English Common Law. In English Common Law the Judges are subservient to the elected representatives of the people.

    The “people” were not allowed to vote for the British parliament until 1832. Not all were allowed to vote. Universal male sufferage did not exist until around 1900. Women over 30 1918. women over 21 not till 1928.

    Before 1832 MPs were selected by caucuses of the wealthy elites of each parliamentary borough. Most men were not allowed to vote until around 1900.

    Even you must concede that English common law developed long before 1832.

    So how could all those 400 AD to 1832 Ad Judges possibly have been subservient to the elected representatives of the people when the “people” did not vote?

  • Anonymous

    More news about the hispanic takeover

    INDIANAPOLIS — Both men charged in connection with the shooting of an Indianapolis police officer last week are gang members, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office said Wednesday.

    Formal charges were filed against Eugenio Gonzalez-Rarmirez, 18, and Johnny Taboada-Perez, 22, in the Friday shooting of Officer Dustin Carmack, 6News’ Derrik Thomas reported.

    Gonzalez-Ramirez, who police believe was the triggerman in the shooting, was charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery, carjacking, carrying a handgun without a license and a criminal gang enhancement…

  • Anonymous

    Besides the federal government, the beleaguered law has been sued by others—there are about three dozen plaintiffs and the ACLU, the SPLC and the National Immigration Law Center are in the thick of it.

    All of this is standard Treason Lobby behavior. But this new law is also under particular (and much-publicized) attack from a number of Alabama church leaders. In the United Methodist church, for example, about 150 ministers signed a petition opposing it.

    Plus, it’s being litigated by an ecumenical quartet of three bishops and an archbishop: Bishop Henry N. Parsley, Jr. (Episcopal), Bishop William H. Willimon (United Methodist), and Bishop Robert J. Baker (Roman Catholic). Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi (Roman Catholic).

  • Kingoldby

    Margaret, you need to read some history.

    In English Common Law, Judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench, they have always been subservient to Parliament.

    You are simply wrong on your understanding of Parliament and how it developed. It most certainly did NOT develop from an assembly of Nobles to an elected House. It was ALWAYS bicameral, with an assembly of Nobles AND an assembly of the Common people who were elected.

    You can complain that the democratic process wasn’t very good in 1500, but the fact remains that there were elections then and that the Judges were always subservient to those who were elected.

    Do not blame English Common Law for Judicial activism, English Common Law specifically outlaws Judicial activism.

    Sorry to be blunt, but you are completely wrong on all the facts.

  • Anonymous

    Typical Judge

    The rookie Bronx judge who has been allowing violent criminals to walk free without bail despises her job — and hopes she’ll force a transfer from the rough-and-tumble Criminal Court to the cushier civil division, a well-placed source told The Post. Feinman — a longtime West Village activist and former chair of Community Board 2 — yesterday snapped at a Post photographer outside her apartment. ‘Get the f – – k away from me or I’m calling the police!” she snarled. Carol “Set ‘Em Free” Feinman, 57, was elected as a $125,000-a-year civil court judge, but was bumped to criminal…

  • margaret

    Kingoldby

    You are totally wrong. You have no dates and no facts, just some chauvanistic nonsense from some 1910 “we are the best country in the world” English school book.

    As I wrote before, get thee to a law library and read up on the development of Judge made English common law.

    Until about 1700 parliament did not make laws. All it did was approve or disapprove the sovereign’s requests for taxes.

    The House of Lords and parliament were certainly not “elected representatives of the people” because before 1832 the people couldn’t vote. Even then it was only a select few.

    Caucuses of a couple thousand of the elite in a country of 10 million is not exactly an election.

  • margaret

    It was ALWAYS bicameral, with an assembly of Nobles AND an assembly of the Common people who were elected.

    Kingoldby What’s your definition of the common people who were elected to parliament, the youngest son of a Duke? They weren’t elected anyway, jsut appointed by the biggest landowner around during the time English common law was formed.

    The “common” people did not get to vote until around 1900. In 1832 the franchise was extended to millionaries. Before that only those who owned thousand of acres of land were allowed to vote. The wealthiest bankers, businessmen and industrialists were not allowed to vote before 1832 because they did not own thousands of acres of land.

    The most important thing to know is that judge made English common law was created by the judges from 400 AD on, long before parliament existed.

    Get away from that Winston Churchill Baden Powell version of history.

    That’s what got us into WW1 and WW2 which gave Eastern and Central Europe and China to the communists. And gave the communists in the Roosevelt administration an excuse to give billions of financial aid, weapons and industrial equipment to Russia as well. Weapons they used to slaughter Poles and other Central Europeans Churchill claimed he was saving.

    Even the English don’t believe it any more.

  • Anonymoose

    19 — margaret wrote at 1:25 PM on August 30:

    “Marbury vs Madison did it. It abolished separation of powers and equality between judiciary,executive and legislative and made the judiciary supreme. Including over the president.”

    And so it is. The Supreme Court, almost always using the issue of race and color as a hook, has decided for us what the basic system of life within American society will be. Dred Scott — Plessy v. Fergueson — Brown v. Topeka — Griggs v. Duke Power and the other precedents that set up the affirmative action-disparate impact system.

    At least the Supreme Court has always had some members who have had serious experience and take their responsibilities seriously. Often not so for lower judges. As long as we let people sit around in college in a sweatshirt, with a rag tied around their head, spouting Marxism, then go on to play the political game and get appointed to the federal bench, we will reap the consequences. A smart high school student or even a guy off the street could come up with better justifications than some of these judges.

    The real issue, though, is giving all power to people from one academic discipline. Of course there is a need for some consistency, but sometimes consistency, they call it deference to precedent, is the “hobgoblin of small minds” and the mark of cowardice and inadvertentcy.

  • margaret

    Kingoldby

    If you are a race realist or White nationalist why on earth do you keep defending the Judges and Judicial system that:

    (1) Desegregated schools, integrated schools, ordered tens of billions spend on school busing and forced hundreds of thousands of White teachers and students to live through the horrors of integrated schools?

    (2) Destroyed city after city and into the suburbs and rural areas with Judicial orders that sent hordes of criminal blacks to destroy so many safe, pleasant White neighborhoods?

    (3) Banned Whites from goverment, quasi goverment such as education and hospital employment through court ordered affirmative action? Banned Whites from private industry as well through Judicially imposed draconian fines? Waht about the Judges who order that Whites be denied college admission?

    (4) Judges who since 1920 by changing the law without benefit of legislatures to favor criminals have aided abetted and encouraged black on White crime which has reached horrendous numbers since 1950?

    With your continual Baden Powell defense of English common law and Judicial precedent I am beginning to doubt you are an amremer at all.

    Either you are an ADL SPLC operative trying to find out who I am so you can set me up for a hate crime charge or you are one of those ghastly Glen Beck Hannity fans who think that America is wonderful and Whites will get their civil rights back and be protected from black on White crime if only a Republican is elected.

    Ever heard of the legal concept of Judicial precedent that rules supreme over any other law? Ever heard of Griggs vs Duke Power and Kaiser vs Weber?

  • margaret

    Bon wrote “Where in the Constitution does it say that lefties in the media or the tyrants in DC have veto power over what the White majority approves?”

    They don’t, but the Supreme Court does, Marbury vs Madison 1803.

  • margaret

    Here is an idea I have been advocating forever. I doubt he will do it if he ever gets into office. The supremes always rule in favor of the illegal immigrants and melding of the mex us economy that Perry and the rest of the elites want.

    Charlotte Observer ^ | September 1, 2011 | Todd J. Gillman The Dallas Morning News

    WASHINGTON Rick Perry, like other conservatives, has lots of complaints about the Supreme Court: The justices, he says, have meddled in social policy, stepped on state power and generally run amok.

    One solution the governor embraces is to end lifetime tenure – a cornerstone of the Constitution, whose drafters worried far less about activist or senile judges than about meddling tyrants and political pressure. The idea isn’t original, and it’s not limited to conservatives. Some scholars on the left have also embraced the idea as a correction for judges serving too long. It began to percolate in the 1980s and…

  • margaret

    Here is another example of the Judicial dictatorship in which we live. 3 Judges have decided that illegals with felony convictions cannot be held in detention centers during the lengthy deportation process.

    These THREE, AND ONLY THREE Judges have just provided immigration attorneys with more procedural help. Delay for a year and the criminal alien is released into the population.

    Years-long immigrant detentions unconstitutional, appeals court rules

    September 01, 2011|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court PRoducer

    Prolonged imprisonment of immigrants fighting deportation — without giving them bail hearings and without forcing the government to justify the detention — is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

    Senegalese native Cheikh Diop had been in custody for more than two years and 11 months because of an old drug conviction. Under federal law, that meant he could be held in custody without a set time limit. The three-judge panel from the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that policy — at least in this case — violated Diop’s rights.

    “There can be no question that Diop’s detention for nearly three years without further inquiry into whether it was necessary to ensure his appearance at the removal proceedings or to prevent a risk of danger to the community, was unreasonable and, therefore, a violation of the Due Process Clause,” said the 23-page ruling.

    The decision applies only to immigrant detainees within the federal circuit covered by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Diop in his appeal, said he and other immigrants should only be held for a “reasonable” amount of time before getting a hearing before an immigration judge.

    “The government should use this decision as an opportunity to change course and to conduct an immediate individualized review of all prolonged detainees to determine if their detention is actually necessary,” said Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, after the ruling was announced.

    The group had proposed a six-month time limit, but the government said such a rigid timetable was unreasonable, given what it said was a growing backlog of immigration cases and appeals. The appeals court agreed.

    “We decline to adopt such a one-size-fits-all approach,” said the judges. “Reasonableness, by its very nature, is a fact-dependent inquiry requiring an assessment of all of the circumstances of any given case.” But they said in Diop’s case that he was held too long.

    Diop’s lawyers had claimed earlier this year that anywhere from 500 to 1,000 people like him had been held by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for at least six months without any bail hearing. That of a total of about 35,000 detainees, which the ACLU argued violated the Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress.

  • margaret

    Ellin Jimmerson, Mother of a 16 year old who was killed by an illegal alien drunk driver is fighting the Alabama law. Note only is she fighting it, but she is one of the plaintiffs who filed the suit against the State of Alabama.

    Whites are a sick, degenerate, disgusting race and I am ashamed to belong to it.

    “We have an update on the illegal immigration law and perspective from one of the plaintiffs.

    In April of 2009, Ellin Jimmerson’s 16 year old daughter and her boyfriend were killed in a car crash. Illegal immigrant, Felix Ortega, smashed into them while driving drunk. He pled guilty to reckless murder.

    Now Jimmerson is fighting to stop Alabama’s illegal immigration law, HB 56, from going into effect.

    “HB 56 makes it a crime to transport someone who is undocumented and to encourage them to stay in the state of Alabama and so as a minister these are just things that I can’t agree to do,” said Ellin Jimmerson.”