Immigration Watch International (2): A federal court has stopped California dead in its tracks on a law intended to spring illegal immigrants from immigration detention

Thursday, September 29, 2022

A federal court has stopped California dead in its tracks on a law intended to spring illegal immigrants from immigration detention

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Monday ruled against a state law that would have prohibited privately run immigration detention facilities from operating within the state.

The law, Assembly Bill 32, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, would have prohibited the use of any private detention facilities within the Golden State.

It would not only have applied to facilities contracted through the state, but to facilities contracted by the federal government, as well.

It would also have mandated the closure of all privately contracted immigration detention facilities by 2028, according to The Associated Press.

This proved objectionable to the federal government, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement contracts out several detention facilities to private companies in the state.

The federal government sued California jointly with The Geo Group, a contractor that runs immigration detention facilities on the part of ICE in the state.

ICE itself operates only one detention facility in California, the ruling noted. The law would have likely spurred the release of thousands of illegal aliens if it were ever enforced.

The 8-3 ruling against the state and for the federal government by the full appeals court comes after a three-judge panel ruling that overturned the state’s ban last year, according to ABC.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta authored the legislation ending privatized immigration detention when he was a state lawmaker.

The court’s ruling cited the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declaring that the law would have usurped powers over federal government operations through a state government veto.

“AB 32 would override the federal government’s decision, pursuant to discretion conferred by Congress, to use private contractors to run its immigration detention facilities,” the court’s majority ruled.

Only a small percentage of aliens who enter the country illegally or overstay a visa end up in immigration detention.

ICE had 3.3 million illegals assigned to the “non-detained docket” as of August 2020, according to an agency detention report.

Of these aliens, ICE had the resources “to monitor approximately 5 percent of the total non-detained population, or approximately 100,000 undocumented individuals,” the report stated.

The Department of Homeland Security held around 32,000 aliens in immigration detention as recently as March, according to The Washington Times.

ICE’s 2023 budget requests funds for 25,000 immigration detention beds, a minuscule segment of the broader illegal alien population.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/california-slammed-appeals-court-ruling-halting-immigration-power-grab

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, September 29, 2022

A federal court has stopped California dead in its tracks on a law intended to spring illegal immigrants from immigration detention

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors