Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-plan-bill-to-undo-arizona-immigration-law-if-it-is-upheld-by-court/2012/04/23/gIQAJ4V7cT_story.html

---

Uh oh. Expect this to play into a narrative in the right wing media that scares voters into thinking that these Congressional Democrats want to override state laws. When has Congress ever tried to overturn state legislation before?

[ProudProgressiveNow]

1. Go for it! nt

[freshwest]

2. Googling the 1950's and 1960's civil rights era will show the response of the regressives then.

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

The GOP, Tea Party, KKK and Nazi Party running loose now aren't going to change their views any more than they did in those days. Same ideology is at work now, only a few of the names have changed. Remarkable how many of the names have not changed.

[alp227]

4. Not many to our right would equate immigration law and racial segregation.

It is true that the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and Civil Rights Act of 1965 overrode state-level Jim Crow laws. However, that followed nearly 50 years of Supreme Court rulings crumbling down everything from literacy tests to segregated public schools. In contrast, today most Americans even if not as bigoted as the Dixiecrats have an authoritarian view on illegal immigration yet overlook the possibility that SB 1070 might lead police to commit racial profiling.

[freshwest]

5. Meaning what? Take no action about the racial profiling that is taking place NOW in AZ?

We can't please the right by appeasing them. They don't respect our compromises, they just keep getting more crazy and demanding more.

While we won't use their tactics of intimidation, we can change minds by referring to the parts of the US Constitution SB-1070 violates in practice. Some of the arguments are legal parsing of terms of persons, citizens and people.

I hope that you are not proposing defending states having the right to overcome the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't have time but you may want to google and show me which Article or Amendment in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that permits racial profiling, sniffing people out because of their accents or appearance, is part of the law of the land.

Or that speaking English is the law of the United States, meaning the entire land, which a lot of what is being pushed in Arizona. In their insistence on that, they are violating the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which is part of the events in history that ceded these states to the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

I've been on other boards with conservatives who argued this authoritarian approach for years, who were not able to back it up that way. Democrats have little to lose in the battle for the hearts and minds of those who listen to Fox and hate radio. They are arguing for white supremacy when you finally get them down to their last defenses. They believe that the Bronze Continent was ceded to white Europeans and they want it to stay that way. The changing demographic of the USA are destroying what they thought they could maintain in the last century.

They are in a way, lost souls. Even if the Democrats adopted these laws as part of the platform they would still hate us for supporting human and civil rights and regulating what the corporations are doing to our land, air and water and our democracy and for trying to protect the commons. We support saving the social safety net that the AZ legislature is shredding along with women's rights in that state.

Even with Obama's record of deportation and strong enforcement of immigration and employment laws, they still hate our guts right now because the voices in their heads tell them to hate us. We can't win with them so we might as well do what's right.

So I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's okay with me. You certainly bring a tremendous amount of news to the board and I appreciate it.

[alp227]

6. No, i do not see any constitutionality with those traits you describe of SB1070.

But given the popularity now in the nation of the authoritarian position on immigration, I worry that Schumer's proposal will discourage many moderate/independent voters from voting for Democrats. Especially since in the post-Citizens United era where the Super PACs can invest infinitely in more extreme Willie Horton-type ads. Problem is, most voters either do not understand or willfully dismiss the federal pre-emption concept and usually value law-and-order over civil liberties.

[freshwest]

7. But if we lay low to get the votes of the independents, many Democrats says it's a case of DINOs.

Dude, we cannot win without our base. Okay, maybe we can win with the Independents, but honestly, I don't believe them to truly what they claim.

Most I know who say they're in that group are going to vote for Ron Paul no matter what. They might now make the move over the Democrats, or stay home unless Romney lights their fire. And he's striking all the far right mantras right now.

If the polls are right despite the so called baggers, they are going to vote for him because he's GOP and he's not Obama. And the same will occur in these state races.

AZ has got some hard road ahead to get past where it's at now, but I guess only people in AZ would know if it's true that the Democrats are going to sweep AZ this year. It's hard to believe that with what Brewer and the legislature are doing.

[pampango]

8. The more an issue matters to us the more likely we are to call someone a DINO or

republican-lite if they don't agree with us. Many issues are important to almost all Democrats and it's easy to call someone who doesn't share that belief a DINO.

Other times an issue is maybe more important to you than it is to other Democrats. You might feel justified calling someone a DINO for not agreeing with you (because you feel strongly about the issue), while other Democrats might say that it's an issue that we should be more "reasonable" about so as not to alienate the middle/independent voters. These other Democrats, in turn, may have issues they hold particularly dear and don't want to see compromise on, while you may think the party should be more "reasonable" on those issues.

My guess is that most of us have had occasions to be on both sides of the "You're a DINO for not agreeing with me on this issue" and "Let's be reasonable about this other issue" divide depending on the issue.

[Mister Ed]

3. "Be just and fear not".

Although I think your fears about the potential right-wing counteroffensive are well-grounded, we should not let such fears sway us from doing the right thing. Besides, the reality here is that the Arizona law is an attempt by a state to override the Bill of Rights.

[freshwest]

9. +1

[LanternWaste]

10. Anything (repeat, anything) the Democrats do will play into a right-wing media...

"Expect this to play into a narrative in the right wing media..."

Anything (repeat, anything) the Democrats do will play into a right-wing media. As for me, I believe issues should be decided on via their own merits rather than what the political response may or may not be. I have zero problems with this additional tool being used to illustrate the collective and the individual positions of the parties and their members.




"When has Congress ever tried to overturn state legislation before?"

Check out the Supremacy Clause-- it's been used quite often and to dramatic effect.