Labor of Love in L.A.
The LA Times covers same-sex binational couples. Many stories, many hardships. In honor of the LA Times piece today, I’m going to put a halt on our House Judiciary strategy and ask people to write to Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to support the UAFA. The Action Alert will be posted later. The LA Times piece is called, A Line in the Sand. Let’s draw it for them!
The LA Times story is reaching a broader audience, although it is still only in the LGBT media. Here is a link to a Boston LGBT news outlet. At least it is better than nothing.
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=21768
Since Massachusetts offers same sex marriage, why can’t the state of Massachusetts sue the federal government on infringing on the rights of their citizens? Hence making DOMA unconstitutional.
Comment by nola — July 16, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Massachusetts or someone else could sue the U.S. government for not recognizing same-sex immigration rights. However, this would be a bad idea and would likely fail. Congress has nearly unlimited authority to create immigration laws even if they are unsavory. This policy has been upheld by the Supreme Court, who, citing the plenary powers doctrine, has been extremely reluctant to limit Congresses power in immigration matters.
Comment by adamf — July 16, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Please (if easy and simple) explain the “Plenary Powers Doctrine)….? in simple everyday/everyday people language?
thnx
Comment by derek — July 16, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Derek- Hey, here’s the best I could find: The Plenary Power Doctrine (from Writlaw at: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010731_morrison.html
The plenary power doctrine has been a central feature of the Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence since the late nineteenth century. This doctrine accords the legislative and executive branches broad authority to regulate immigration, and provides that the courts should generally refrain from interfering in immigration matters.
The Court first articulated the doctrine in an 1889 case known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, in which it upheld a statute excluding Chinese laborers from the United States, without subjecting the law to any substantive constitutional analysis. The Court ruled that because immigration decisions by the political branches are “conclusive upon the judiciary,” such analysis was improper.
The Chinese Exclusion Case arose in a time of virulent anti-Chinese racism in this country, hardly an era our modern nation should emulate. Yet despite its less-than-admirable beginnings, the plenary power doctrine has survived to shield a range of subsequent immigration provisions from searching constitutional scrutiny. The result, as the Supreme Court explained in a 1976 case called Mathews v. Diaz, is that, “[i]n the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
This practice has not gone unchallenged. Indeed, the plenary power doctrine has faced years of withering criticism from advocates, scholars, and jurists. Even individual members of the Supreme Court have occasionally questioned the doctrine’s validity. Still, the Court has never formally rejected its plenary power precedents, and the government has continued to rely on them in its legal briefs when defending immigration provisions against constitutional attack.
Comment by adamf — July 17, 2007 @ 10:16 am