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

Garland Attack: Neocon Network Baits Jihadists and Pumps Up the Clash of Civilizations Agenda

I thought this could only happen in Portland, ME

EXCLUSIVE: Black suspect chased, shot in riot-scarred Baltimore

Obama's Constitutional Role Model?

NYPD Officer Shot in Face by Ex-Con in Queens Dies from Injuries: Sources

Sanctions, Wars And Falling Oil Prices No Match For Vladimir Putin

ACLU: ‘Black Spring Has Begun’

Police kill 2 gunmen outside Muhammad cartoon event in Texas

High court on verge of destroying the family

Tesla Battery Economics: On the Path to Disruption

Islamic State Partisans Take Responsibility for TX Terrorist Attack at Pamela Geller AFDI Event

All-female Smith College to accept transgender applicants

Rise of Drug Cartel Brings Wave of Mexican Violence

Dinga Dinga Dee: Israeli Rafael weapons pitch - Indigenous Air Systems

Forbes: Why Tesla's Powerwall Is Just Another Toy For Rich Green People

America's trailer parks: the residents may be poor but the owners are getting rich

Former Castro Bodyguard: Cuba Ran Drug Operation in US, Killed Aide to Cover It Up

Fox News Posts Fake Baltimore Riot Photo That’s Actually From Venezuela

Do you live in the most racist place in America?

Wells Fargo Is Baltimore’s Real Looter

NYPD Cop Shot in the Head in Queens

Have You Noticed: LF Stats are Skewed?

Vinegar Boy

Mr, Mrs, Miss... and Mx: Transgender people will be able to use new title on official documents

Iowa Caucus Kingmaker Assesses 2016 GOP Field

Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s Woman, Then He’s a Woman’

Is Baltimore Prosecutor Wrong About the Legality of Freddie Gray's Knife?

These Guys Ticked Off The Wrong Bankruptcy Judge

IRS Seizes $107,000 From Innocent Small-Town Convenience Store Owner For 'Structuring' Deposits

Microsoft Hololens

Death Row Inmate Likely To Die By Nitrogen Gas

Paul says comments about Baltimore were misinterpreted

US testing shows aircraft safety systems can't prevent lithium-ion battery fire, explosion

Forbes: The Rise of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Former GOP lawmaker blisters Texas Governor for ‘pandering to idiots’ over military exercises

Inside the Military-Police Center That Spies on Baltimore's Rioters

In 24 Hours Bernie Sanders Raised More Money Than Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz

Submarine sales on the rise, and to some disturbing customers

Hillary Blames The Cops For Black “Incarceration And Premature Death”–I. E. Black Crime

Clarke: Freddie Gray Charges 'George Zimmerman and the Duke Lacrosse case all over again'

Comcast sued a city trying to build high-speed internet — then offered its own version

Jeb Bush says his mother and 'Baltimore mom' have a lot in common

Tesla's Powerwall: 12 important facts to know

DR. BEN CARSON: ‘HIGH LIKELIHOOD DIRECT TRAUMA’ OCCURRED TO FREDDIE GRAY

Weekend Music Thread

Mugshots of Six Indicted Baltimore Cops Released

Bobby Jindal's Muddled Message (Hindu-Catholic, existential confusion)

Alan Dershowitz Rips Charges Against Baltimore Cops: 'Sad Day for Justice'

Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?

Questions Remain After Officers Charged in Death of Freddie Gray


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: 182

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