Saturday, February 05, 2005

GOP proposes bill that would suspend ALL laws

GOP proposes bill that would suspend ALL laws

The immigrant haters are threatening us ALL in the name of Fatherland Security:

"On January 26, 2005, Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act of 2005. In the name of homeland security, it includes a number of items changing immigration laws, use of drivers' licenses, etc.

But -- most overlooked -- is Section 102 of this bill. It would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend any and all laws in order to ensure the 'expeditious' construction of a set of barriers and roads south of San Diego, to keep illegal immigrants out. It also would prohibit ANY judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law. ON EDIT: While the law the bill references mentions barriers and roads 'near San Diego,' it does not appear to be (technically speaking) limited to that area -- but to any barriers or roads 'in the vicinity of the United States border.' (See comments below).

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."


My gut says "unconstitutional" but I hardy trust these courts...

No comments: