I am somewhat concerned about the etiology of the course of constitutional challenges to President Obama's authority. This is a Pennsylvania hearing regarding the President's Executive Order on Immigration. But, the basis for the judicial decision is from definitions submitted from a Texas proceeding.
Basically what is occurring is designer decisions manufactured in Texas. As a result other courts have to consider the evidence in other decisions as it is submitted during the proceedings.
It is rather amazing to have all this mess chronically appear to change the direction of power within the Executive Branch. This isn't the same as Prop 8 as it was passed by a voting majority. In this case the Texas legislature created concepts and words which made it's way through the judicial process to a higher court.
The political right wing is rigging the system though the Texas legislature. This level of hatred of the Undocumented can't go without notice. The Texas Republicans are going through rather extreme measures to defeat an Executive Order. This is more than hatred, it is manipulation of the power structure for reasons still unclear to me.
...II. Procedural Posture (click here)
A. How Defendant's Case Came to be before this court,
Defendant appears before this Court, in part because ofarguably unequal and arbitraryimmigration enforcement in the United States.
As noted above, a New Sewickley Township Police Officer arrested Defendant andHomeland Security was notified of his potential undocumented status following his arrest. TheCommonwealth of Pennsylvania is not a “sanctuary state.”
There is very little “official”information concerning “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states.” In Veasey v. Perry, 13-CV- 00193, 2014 WL 5090258, *17, fn 149 (S.D. Tex. October 09, 2014), a Federal Judge for theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas defined “sanctuary cities” as“cities that have refused to fund law enforcement efforts to look for immigration law violators,leaving that to the federal government. S.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 8 (2011) (designating theelimination of sanctuary cities as a legislative emergency).
Had Defendant been arrested in a “sanctuary state” or a “sanctuary city,” local law enforcement likely would not have reported him to Homeland Security. If Defendant had notbeen reported to Homeland Security, he would likely not have been indicted for one count of re-entry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Further, neither a federal indictment nor deportation proceedings were inevitable, evenafter Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), a division of Homeland Security, becameinvolved. In 2013, ICE personnel declined to bring charges against thousands of undocumentedimmigrants who had previous criminal convictions.
Therefore, Defendant possibly would not be facing sentencing and/or deportation if hehad been arrested under the same circumstances, but in another city/state or if different ICEpersonnel had reviewed his case....
Basically what is occurring is designer decisions manufactured in Texas. As a result other courts have to consider the evidence in other decisions as it is submitted during the proceedings.
It is rather amazing to have all this mess chronically appear to change the direction of power within the Executive Branch. This isn't the same as Prop 8 as it was passed by a voting majority. In this case the Texas legislature created concepts and words which made it's way through the judicial process to a higher court.
The political right wing is rigging the system though the Texas legislature. This level of hatred of the Undocumented can't go without notice. The Texas Republicans are going through rather extreme measures to defeat an Executive Order. This is more than hatred, it is manipulation of the power structure for reasons still unclear to me.
...II. Procedural Posture (click here)
A. How Defendant's Case Came to be before this court,
Defendant appears before this Court, in part because ofarguably unequal and arbitraryimmigration enforcement in the United States.
As noted above, a New Sewickley Township Police Officer arrested Defendant andHomeland Security was notified of his potential undocumented status following his arrest. TheCommonwealth of Pennsylvania is not a “sanctuary state.”
There is very little “official”information concerning “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states.” In Veasey v. Perry, 13-CV- 00193, 2014 WL 5090258, *17, fn 149 (S.D. Tex. October 09, 2014), a Federal Judge for theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas defined “sanctuary cities” as“cities that have refused to fund law enforcement efforts to look for immigration law violators,leaving that to the federal government. S.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 8 (2011) (designating theelimination of sanctuary cities as a legislative emergency).
Had Defendant been arrested in a “sanctuary state” or a “sanctuary city,” local law enforcement likely would not have reported him to Homeland Security. If Defendant had notbeen reported to Homeland Security, he would likely not have been indicted for one count of re-entry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Further, neither a federal indictment nor deportation proceedings were inevitable, evenafter Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), a division of Homeland Security, becameinvolved. In 2013, ICE personnel declined to bring charges against thousands of undocumentedimmigrants who had previous criminal convictions.
Therefore, Defendant possibly would not be facing sentencing and/or deportation if hehad been arrested under the same circumstances, but in another city/state or if different ICEpersonnel had reviewed his case....
