Wed Apr 25, 2012, 01:40 PM
alp227 (23,057 posts)
Arizona immigration law: Supreme Court seems receptive to parts of crackdown
Source: Washington Post
The Supreme Court Wednesday seemed receptive to the argument that Arizona’s tough plan to have state and local law enforcement play a much more active role in identifying illegal immigrants was a valid exercise of its power to protect its borders.
“What could possibly be wrong,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., with Arizona officers simply checking the status of someone detained and giving the information to the federal government.
If the federal authorities do not wish to invoke deportation proceedings against the person, Roberts said, they don’t have to.
Verrilli said the structural problem with Arizona’s far-reaching law is that its goal of “attrition through enforcement” would simply move the problem of illegal immigration from one state to its neighbor. “That’s something that Arizona cannot do,” he said.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arizona-immigration-law-supreme-court-seems-receptive-to-parts-of-crackdown/2012/04/25/gIQAcp23gT_story.html
Polls have shown that nearly two thirds of Americans supported 1070.
My YouTube channel: Mike Malloy, Thom Hartmann, and more! http://youtube.com/user/andrewsaccount09
3 replies, 1674 views
Arizona immigration law: Supreme Court seems receptive to parts of crackdown (Original post)
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 01:50 PM
pampango (15,242 posts)
1. The parties that have filed "friends-of-the-court" briefs is interesting (and predictable).
The list of them is here: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-182.html
Some notables on the Arizona government side: Freedom Watch, Joe Arpaio, Minuteman Project and Russell Pearce as well as an assortment of republican politician and conservative activists.
Some notables on the US government side: ACLU, AFL-CIO, SEIU, UFCW and other unions and numerous Democratic cities and states.
We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. ... We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community. ... We shall strive for perfection. ... We may make mistakes, but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.
Response to pampango (Reply #1)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:55 PM
FarCenter (15,786 posts)
2. Even Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor Shredded The Government's Arguments Against Arizona's Immigrati
Signs it's not going well for this government and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli at the Supreme Court: when a traditionally liberal judge appointed by Barack Obama has no idea of the argument they're trying to make.
Enter Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
"Putting aside your argument that this -- that a systematic cooperation is wrong -- you can see it's not selling very well -- why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said to Verrilli.
"Because I, frankly -- as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don't have to take the person into custody. So what's left of your argument?"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-immigration-law-arguments-shredded-even-by-liberal-justices-2012-4
Response to FarCenter (Reply #2)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 07:24 PM
jade3000 (237 posts)
3. Even Sotomayor -- That's definitely not promising
Looks like some of it's going to be upheld: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11388195-supreme-court-signals-its-ok-with-parts-of-arizonas-immigration-law?lite
I disagree with the law on moral grounds, but that's because I disagree with immigration restrictions as a whole. Borders between nations combined with the enforcement of immigrations restritions are the number one force that maintains international wealth disparities.