Comments on: Memo to L.A. Times Editors: Illegal Immigration Is Illegal

By: Immigration Debate Could Affect You

Immigration Debate Could Affect You — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:08:29 +0000

The Immigration Debate: How This Issue Could Affect Your Household

The current immigration debate opens up questions about the rights of employers and employees, particularly those engaged in domestic work. As the topic grabs headlines, many Americans may wonder how this issue affects their households.

By: stef

stef — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:31:16 +0000

“Winning requires standing …”

And standing doesn’t require winning. There we go.

By: Verlin Martin

Verlin Martin — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:56:34 +0000

Winning requires standing …

By: stef

stef — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:32:46 +0000

“In the end, it just appears that Stef takes issue with illegal immigrants being unable to terminate laws intended to punish them for being here illegally, and preventing them from benifitting them from being here illegally…”

The problem is that you don’t get the difference between standing and winning. Standing just requires that there be a harm. Winning, that requires more.

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:47:37 +0000

In the end, it just appears that Stef takes issue with illegal immigrants being unable to terminate laws intended to punish them for being here illegally, and preventing them from benifitting them from being here illegally…

By: DRJ

DRJ — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:25:17 +0000

I understand that, Stef. The legal concept of standing in US courts is important and works well, but it is nevertheless a legal device. That’s what I meant by my comment, and I regret if it didn’t come across that way.

By: nk

nk — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:23:12 +0000

Take it easy, stef. I’m sure that if the plaintiffs were actually prosecuted under the laws they’re challenging, they’d have standing to challenge their constitutionality. Until then, it’s speculative. Yeah, I think the death penalty for rape of an adult woman violates the Eighth Amendment. So do I have standing to sue for an assurance that I would not get the death penalty were I to rape an adult woman, under Article III’s requirement of “cases or controversies”?

By: stef

stef — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:11:27 +0000

“Standing is a legal fiction”

It’s a constitutional requirement.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:02:42 +0000

Standing is a legal fiction. It has a good purpose but it can lead to odd results. For example, an illegal immigrant employee has standing to file a civil rights claim against his employer, but legal residents of other states don't have standing to request the same treatment as laws that let illegal residents pay college tuition at in-state rates. The theory in the first example is that the parties have standing because they may have been harmed. The theory in the second example is that they don't have standing because they haven't been harmed.

By: stef

stef — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:50:11 +0000

“Please, explain to me why you don’t grasp that.”

I get the point. You imagine that they’re claiming the right to do something which they cannot do. But they’re not.

What you’re not getting is that they’re not claiming a right to be able to work here illegally. They of course are claiming a legally protected interest. Such as the federalism issues of having the federal government take care of immigration, or the 14th amendment interest in equal protection.