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

New Breaking News Julian ASSANGE speech at the Ecuadorian Embassy !

An Establishment in Panic

Small hack to help with DNS probs (for Linux users only)

Clinton server email at heart of 'quid pro quo' controversy contained Benghazi intel

WIKILEAKS - RE: NYC/Gloria Allred Link

WIKILEAKS: We ask supporters to stop taking down the US internet. You proved your point.

Today's Brutal DDoS Attack Is the Beginning of a Bleak Future

Songs from my band (Avant Garage)

WIKILEAKS: Donna Brazile - "I think people are more in despair about how things are—yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs."

Has anyone else noticed there have been weird things happening on the Internet today

HERO POLICE OFFICER Dashcam video shows Texas officer helping boy who had seizure

Bad Hombres -- Nasty Women

Leaked Emails Prove That A Shadow Gov Rules: Hillary Aims to “Make Soros Happy”

Unrest and Martial Law? Leaked Military Drill Anticipates “No Rule of Law” After Election Results

Air Force Maj. Harold Hering - An Unsung Hero of the Nuclear Age

American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season

“Most serious” Linux privilege-escalation bug ever is under active exploit (updated)

The Hawk on Russia Policy? Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump

Frank Gaffney: Clinton, Obama Have Given Us ‘Much More Dangerous Kremlin and Putin’

Back to Videos Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia

Hillary Clinton: America's Most Dangerous Enemy Within

Pentagon: Hillary Clinton Should Be Arrested For Leaking Top Secret Nuclear Intelligence on National TV

Loose Nukes

Clinton's debate reference to nuclear response rekindles judgement questions

WIKILEAKS: "We have a suprise in store for @TimKaine and @DonnaBrazile"

Maybe I'll get divorced soon

WIKILEAKS: Re: FYI CGI Africa [Huma: She created this mess and she knows it.]

Hillary Clinton Whisper Dozen Ear Piece 3rd Debate

Clinton-Trump III - D.C. v. Heller [RKBA]

Clinton-Trump III - D.C. v. Heller [RKBA]

Project Veritas Proven Right by CNN Video

RE: Tax hit for Chris Hayes

I think Trump just made a mistake in hs speech

Ecuador says it disconnected Julian Assange’s internet because of Clinton email leaks

Politicians Should Try Drugs—and Honesty

General Cartwright is paying the price for Hillary Clinton’s sins

WIKILEAKS - Re: Proposed Final for Infrastructure Memo

On the Debate

WIKILEAKS - Millenials Poll [Voter registration]

WIKILEAKS - She doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in

CNN cuts satellite feed as soon as WikiLeaks is mentioned by Congressman Collins

The Missing "Oh Shit" Link Revealed: Hillary Admits "I Asked That They Be Deleted"

Judicial Watch: New Emails Show Hillary Clinton Contacts with Bryan Pagliano – Raise New Questions About Her Sworn Testimony

WikiLeaks Show Rothschilds Grooming Clinton for Presidency — Months Before She Launched Candidacy

WikiLeaks’ 10 Most Damning Clinton Emails that Prove Mainstream Media is Scripted & Controlled

WIKILEAKS - Re: Response to Gowdy Comments

Hillary Clinton’s “Sudden Move” Of $1.8 Billion To Qatar Central Bank Stuns Financial World

LOL All The Cable Pre-Dabate Banter

At 90, Chuck Berry back to rock 'n' roll

Cops Have a Database of 117M Faces. You’re Probably in It

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: 334

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