[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Good Morning everyone my name is Devil Anse

Al Gore Wants to Ban Cars in Cities

Here’s Why Republicans Need Mitt Romney to Run for President

BILL GATES PUSHES CASHLESS SOCIETY

US Navy NCIS Scrambles To Get Story Together After Suspicious Death / Commander Firing At GITMO

Female Commander At Pope AFB Fired

Obama ... 'Matrix' --- a world of deniability

Jeb's invisible man strategy

N.M. court upholds ban on switchblades, suggests broader knife bans might be constitutional, too.

'American Sniper' Movie Guide "Family Review" (Warning: Details & SPOILERS)

Scott Walker shows fire in Iowa

Who Killed Litvinenko? Perhaps Not Russia After All

Rooftop solar is now cheaper than the grid in 42 American cities

Possible drone found on White House grounds (Obamas take refuge in New Delhi)

Man Faces Jail After Not Paying Child Support For a Child He’s Proven is Not His

Jeb Bush: We Need to Control Border By Politely Asking Illegals to Leave

10 Weirdest Ways Pro Sports Teams Tried To Get An Edge

Top 20 Greatest Strategy Games (How Many Have You Played?)

Law Has Been Murdered (Government Kangaroo Courts)

Marijuana a Schedule 1 Drug! (Marijuana Is Classified With Heroin and Cocaine) Are you Kidding me?

Libertarians have ‘good reason to be optimistic’ (43% of Americans are independents, 30% D, 26% R)

Sunday Night Music Thread

Who is Sajida al-Rishawi? And why does ISIS care about her?

...And Now for Something Completely Different

Sidney argues that a People’s liberty is a gift of nature and exists prior to any government (1683)

Algernon Sidney argues that a law that is not just is not a law (1683)

Walker vs. Cruz on Gay Marriage

California Bars Judges From Boy Scouts Because of Anti-Gay Stance

(vanity) Reminder---First Episode Of History Channel's "Sons Of Liberty'' TONIGHT

AC/DC’s ‘Big Balls’ Rewritten About Tom Brady and DeflateGate

New Psychiatric Diagnosis Targets “Internet Conspiracy Theorists”

Leggett on the tendency of the government to become “the universal dispenser of good and evil” (1834)

Texas open carry activists unlawfully arrested against state penal codes

A GUIDE TO 2016 REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES’ POSITIONS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The New Progressive Mitt Romney is the Same as the Old Progressive Mitt Romney

Fox News Raises Alarm Over College Course About Race

Mayor Calls 911 To Report A Robbery, Police Show Up, Beat and Arrest Her

The Secret of Global Warming

Socrates as the “gadfly” of the state (4thC BC)

GOP Summit—The Good, The Bad And The Absolutely Crazy

Game chants strike racial nerve in Lodi

Fact-checking Rand Paul's disability claims

The day I ate pot candy and ended up in hospital

Welcome Back Calcon

Failure to Launch

Great news. Republicans look at eliminating filibuster for SCOTUS nominees

Japanese Characters stolen from Korean Characters

Who Decides Whether Rand Paul's Libertarian Girl Has 'Fringe' Foreign Policy Views?

The flawed libertarian response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks

Lars Andersen: a new level of archery

Terrorists in Paris Don’t Understand How Free People Think


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles

Title: Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision
Source: fox news
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... ttle-arrives-at-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 25, 2012
Author: staff
Post Date: 2012-04-25 12:56:07 by calcon
Keywords: None
Views: 147

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.

The justices appeared to ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

Just like the health care overhaul challenge heard earlier this month, Wednesday's hearing on the immigration law drew passionate surrogates from both sides. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was loudly booed by the law's opponents in front of the courthouse. She said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."

While the justices addressed the traffic stop provision Wednesday, it was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the law, voiced optimism in Arizona's chances.

"This was a very good day for Arizona in the Supreme Court today," he told Fox News. "The U.S. Justice Department was on the ropes."

But Brent Wilkes, director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that the law would take a "human toll" on Arizona families if allowed to stand.

"This is really a racial profiling bill," he told Fox News.

The hearing Wednesday morning has implications far beyond Arizona's borders, as several states, including Alabama and South Carolina, have followed in Arizona's footsteps to craft their own immigration enforcement measures.

The Obama administration, which opposes those measures, has argued that the country cannot sustain a patchwork of separate immigration laws.

Verrilli, who is arguing on behalf of the government, said in his brief that the Executive Branch has the power to enforce immigration policy.

"For each state, and each locality, to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress' goal: a single, national approach," he wrote.

But Arizona argued that the current system is broken, and that the state is paying an unfair price for that failure.

"Arizona shoulders a disproportionate burden of the national problem of illegal immigration," attorney Paul Clement argued in his brief. He argued that enforcement attention in California and Texas has turned the Arizona border into a funnel for illegal immigrants, with a third of illegal border crossings occurring there.

The attorney described Arizona's law as a response to an "emergency situation" -- with illegal immigrants soaking up millions of state dollars in health care and education, posing safety risks to ranchers and cutting into the state's job market.

Two of the key statutes, which have been blocked and will be at issue in Wednesday's arguments, are provisions to bar illegal immigrants from seeking a job and to require law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally in the course of a routine stop.

A ruling from the Supreme Court is likely to come this summer, in the thick of the presidential election year -- it could either bolster what has been a bold move from the Obama administration's Justice Department to intervene in state issues ranging from immigration to voter ID laws, or stop the administration in its tracks and open the floodgates to even more state laws that challenge federal authority.

The immigration case arrives at the high court Wednesday just weeks after the justices heard arguments in the multi-state challenge to the federal health care overhaul.

Democrats on Capitol Hill this week were already scrambling to prepare for the possibility that the high court upholds the immigration law. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced a plan to introduce a bill that would effectively nullify Arizona's law -- though it would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House.

"Immigration has not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority," Schumer said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill hearing, where he announced he would introduce the proposal should the Supreme Court "ignore" the "plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent" and uphold the Arizona law.

But former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the law, said: "We have a national crisis, and yet everyone wants to ignore that: the cost, the damage, the crime."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/...reme-court/#ixzz1t4X4lq00

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com