Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law
Reading the Supreme Court’s decision largely overturning the Arizona immigration law, which served as the model for much of Georgia’s immigration law as well….
Court notes that “Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.” That suggests President Obama was well within his constitutional powers with his mini-DREAM act order last week.
The majority opinion states:
“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States….
Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.”
The Court tossed an Arizona provision making it a state crime to be in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law. It also threw out a provision making it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in Arizona.
It also tossed Section 6 of the Arizona law, which as Justice Kennedy notes in his majority opinion “authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person ‘the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States,’” or in other words is here illegally.
“If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent,” Kennedy writes. “… This would allow the state to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment
of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.”
The sole surviving section of the law requires state law enforcement to check the immigration status of everybody it takes into custody. And that part of the law may stand only for the time being. The justices want to see how that part of the law actually works in practice, but they made it clear that they are dubious that it will withstand future constitutional scrutiny.
For example, Kennedy notes the case of someone who is stopped for a jaywalking violation. If that person is detained in jail while his or her immigration status is checked — something that would not happen for a simple jaywalking case — such prolonged detention would violate the Constitution.
It was a 5-3 decision, with Justice Kagan recusing herself because she was involved in the case in her previous job as solicitor general. The three justices in the minority were Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Scalia’s dissent is quite broad to the point of radical. He begins by complaining that the majority opinion “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” in effect endorsing the novel concept that states have a constitutional right to their own immigration policies independent of that of the federal government.
“Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers,” Scalia writes.
Just as remarkably, Scalia takes the opportunity to attack Obama’s announcement last week that illegal immigrants brought here as children will not be deported, a topic not at issue in this case.
“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”
Neither Thomas nor Alito embrace Scalia’s extremism in their own dissents.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
487 comments Add your comment
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:05 pm
“I don’t think it really matters, given than no one’s getting immunity. I think they’re saying that they’re going to focus enforcement efforts on older illegosos.”
It obviously matters, since the act is directed at children of illegal immigrants and the upper age limit could hardly have been, say, 50. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama, it might be because that would cover those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, I have no idea.
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:09 pm
CRIER
I will be coming back to that when I can read and digest it properly. I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring it.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
1:10 pm
Towncrier — “It obviously matters, since the act is directed at children of illegal immigrants and the upper age limit could hardly have been, say, 50. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama, it might be because that would cover those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, I have no idea.”
Again, I still don’t think it matters, given that no one’s getting immunity. Look at the last paragraph of the document I posted:
“As there is no right to the favorable exercise ofdiscretion by the agency, nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit the apprehension, detention, or removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States or to limit the legal authority of ICE or any of its personnel to enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this memorandum, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.”
They’re not *actively seeking* illegosos under 30, but they’re clearly saying that nothing in the policy expressly *prevents* them from catching and deporting same.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:10 pm
“I think that someone who’s willing to slog through the desert on foot for three days, avoiding snakes and gila monsters JUST so he can lay masonry or hang doorframes is the kind of worker we WANT in America. So instead of dissing illegosos, let’s figure out some common-sense solutions that don’t involve automatically picking on brown folk.”
I would agree completely except that I don’t think many conservatives like myself have it in mind to be “picking on brown folk” in seeking to uphold immigration laws – even though that may be the perception of many (yet even kids when rightly disciplined by their parents may feel put upon or disliked).
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
1:14 pm
Towncrier — “I would agree completely except that I don’t think many conservatives like myself have it in mind to be “picking on brown folk” in seeking to uphold immigration laws – even though that may be the perception of many (yet even kids when rightly disciplined by their parents may feel put upon or disliked).”
I respectfully disagree.
My wife is Hispanic, and I can’t TELL you how many times one or both of us have been asked — albeit politely — if she’s here legally, how she came to be in America, etc. Several years ago, she almost got caught up in a sweep at a Hispanic grocery; it was the fact that she was an HR professional and knew immigration law (and that she speaks English with no Spanish accent) that kept her from getting hauled off.
While conservatives like you may not be *overtly* picking on brown folk in this regard, I can tell you that many, many conservatives *do* do it. Whether it’s intentional or not, I can’t say.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:15 pm
“They’re not *actively seeking* illegosos under 30, but they’re clearly saying that nothing in the policy expressly *prevents* them from catching and deporting same.”
I believe it matters because, for all they may know, many of young adult ” illegosos” they may not seek to deport may not, in fact, be children of such but relatively new immigrants.
John Birch
June 25th, 2012
1:16 pm
Towncrier – Illegal aliens cannot enlist in the US military. Legal skilled immigrants and permanent residents can enlist, but not illegals.
Woodstock Mike
June 25th, 2012
1:17 pm
Interesting interpretation Jay…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:20 pm
“While conservatives like you may not be *overtly* picking on brown folk in this regard, I can tell you that many, many conservatives *do* do it. Whether it’s intentional or not, I can’t say.”
I likewise have been married to a latina for a number of years. She has never had any issues like you mention that I know of. I guess the question I have for you is who was doing the asking and sweeping of which you speak? If it was just the police, I would say that one must not confuse their (at times obvious – and not just with respect to illegal immigration) prosecutorial zeal for conservative intent.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
1:21 pm
Some old funnies to laugh at…I’m not laughing because now, most of them are true…
Some Senior Thoughts
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway,
the good fortune to run into the ones
I do…
and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Now that I’m older(but refuse to grow up) here’s what I’ve discovered:
1. I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.
2. My wild oats have turned into prunes and all-bran.
3. I finally got my head together, and now my body is falling apart.
4. Funny, I don’t remember being absent-minded.
5. Funny, I don’t remember being absent-minded.
6. If all is not lost, where is it?
7. It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
8. Some days, you’re the dog; some days you’re the hydrant.
9. I wish the buck stopped here; I sure could use a few.
10. Kids in the back seat cause accidents.
11. Accidents in the back seat cause kids.
12. It’s hard to make a comeback when you really haven’t been anywhere.
13. The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you’re in the bathroom.
14. If God wanted me to touch my toes, he’d have put them on my knees.
15. When I’m finally holding all the cards, why does everyone want to play chess?
16. It ’s not hard to meet expenses… they’re everywhere.
17.The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
18.These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about the hereafter…
I go somewhere to get something, and then wonder what I’m hereafter.
19. Funny, I don’t remember being absent-minded.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:21 pm
“I will be coming back to that when I can read and digest it properly. I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring it.”
Cool, buddy.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
1:21 pm
Paul,
The ruling IMO put simply decided that only the Federal government, which of course includes congress has the authority to craft and enforce immigration laws and that the State of Arizona does not have equal authority to pass immigration laws. They left open the states authority to order its law enforcement to check the immigration status of persons taken under arrest should there be good reason to believe that those persons are in the state illegally. It seems that the Supreme Courts ruling is being stretched to make this ruling that mostly favors the administration much more favorable than what it really is.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
1:24 pm
John Birch,
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3271/
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
1:24 pm
josef
Thanks. I have been working on it……..
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:24 pm
“Illegal aliens cannot enlist in the US military. Legal skilled immigrants and permanent residents can enlist, but not illegals.”
Without false papers, I should think not. But that does not seem to keep Obama and Romney from claiming the opposite.
TaxPayer
June 25th, 2012
1:25 pm
Scalia must have received the full treatment upon his visit to the Koch Bros. hideaway.
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:27 pm
CRIER
Your latina wife…two questions, what does she look like and does she have a latino surname which she maintains in her documents?
The reason I ask, is that I have colleagues who are from such places as Argentina or Uruguay who are blonde, light skinned and with German, Slavic or Italian surnames who have not ever been questioned. I have others, some of whom have roots back centuries and who speak English with a Southern accent you could cut with a butter knife who “look” latino and who have latino surnames and who have been grilled repeatedly.
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
1:28 pm
With the part that the court upheld, license check point is indeed needed and often.
Jack
June 25th, 2012
1:28 pm
Mexicans that can’t come here legally can sneak in and birth a baby and the baby is legal: something’s wrong with that.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:29 pm
Josef, she is PR, does not look “caucasian” and has retained her maiden name as her middle name.
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:30 pm
NORMAL
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
1:30 pm
Towncrier — ” I guess the question I have for you is who was doing the asking and sweeping of which you speak?”
The asking was done by various individuals at social or work functions. In one case, a party guest asked my wife what part of Mexico she was from. She replied “California.”
Another guest defused the potential conflict by pointing out that he was actually from North Carolina, and not really from Africa at all.
The sweep was done by ICE (INS at the time).
“If it was just the police, I would say that one must not confuse their (at times obvious – and not just with respect to illegal immigration) prosecutorial zeal for conservative intent.”
When someone leaps to the conclusion that a Hispanic person is automatically from Mexico, I can assure you that it’s not liberal thought leading them there.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
1:31 pm
“Mexicans that can’t come here legally can sneak in and birth a baby and the baby is legal: something’s wrong with that”
Only Mexicans? Funny, and all this time I thought ALL people born here were citizens. Learn something new every day. /snarc
Jefferson
June 25th, 2012
1:31 pm
Amend the Constitution, Jack.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
1:32 pm
Doggone — “Only Mexicans? Funny, and all this time I thought ALL people born here were citizens. Learn something new every day. /snarc”
A-HENH.
barking frog
June 25th, 2012
1:33 pm
Another twisty turny memo
from SCOTUS that solves
nothing and complicates
the situation. They will do
the same with PPACA.
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
1:34 pm
something’s wrong with that.
Take it up with the heroic men who drafted the most sacred document ever written – the Constitution of the United States of America…
Former President Jimmy Carter says the United States has abandoned its role as the world’s champion of human rights and cites the recent stories of targeted assassinations and drone attacks that have killed innocent civilians as “disturbing proof” of how the country has lost its “moral leadership.”
Writing in a New York Times op-ed piece published Monday, Carter delivered a blistering attack on the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush — as well as Congress — accusing all of sanctioning and conducting foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts in a way that would have been unthinkable in years past.
“The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights,” Carter wrote. “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended.
“This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public,” he said. “As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.”
Carter — whose work on human rights and advancing democracy around the world was rewarded with the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize — also declared that U.S. actions had violated at least 10 of 30 articles in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted to protect people from “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he said. “But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.”
The former president was highly critical of a wide range of counterterrorism and national security measures put in place in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Citing everything from “cleared” detainees still being held at Guantanamo and the waterboarding of prisoners to “unwarranted wiretapping” and “mining of private communications,” Carter said U.S. laws and polices now violate the basic rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and the presumption of innocence.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/carter-us-human-rights/2012/06/25/id/443314
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:35 pm
JACK
It’s not just “Mexicans” that do that. The baby born on US soil is an American citizen unless the parents stipulate differently. That’s that, like it, lump it, love it, or leave it. Otherwise, all you black and white folks need to go back to where your folks came from, Helen Thomas. If we start dickering with that, then just where do we do the cut-off? You say this generation, Unmentionable says since 1492…
1776
June 25th, 2012
1:37 pm
There should be NONE of it overturned. Illegal invaders are NOT citizens and thus shouldn’t be covered under the Constitution. This is just another example of the fedgov’s encroachment on states’ rights.
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:37 pm
CRIER
Where’d she get that Potorikken birth certificate?
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:39 pm
“Only Mexicans? Funny, and all this time I thought ALL people born here were citizens.”
Yes, and I think that at this point, the 14th Amendment needs clarification from the SCOTUS or to be modified with respect to children born of illegal immigrants. The SCOTUS has never explicitly ruled on this.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:39 pm
“Where’d she get that Potorikken birth certificate?”
She is a NewYorRican, born in the Bronx.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
1:45 pm
“Mexicans that can’t come here legally can sneak in and birth a baby and the baby is legal: something’s wrong with that.”
Jack, you left out the part where after they come in and go into labor they enter hospitals through emergency and after giving birth not only is the baby a U.S. citizen but child and mother are both covered by Medicaid. That coverage pays the hospital bill as well as post natal care for the mother and pediatric care for the child. Quite a financial burden in states with high illegal immigrant populations.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:46 pm
“Former President Jimmy Carter says the United States has abandoned its role as the world’s champion of human rights and cites the recent stories of targeted assassinations and drone attacks that have killed innocent civilians as “disturbing proof” of how the country has lost its “moral leadership.”
That is an amazing statement from a man who grew up in Georgia amid institutionalized terrorism in the form of the KKK. Not to suggest Carter was part of that madness, but what “moral leadership” is he saying we “lost”? LBJ leading us into the Vietnam War? It’s like he has little historical perspective.
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:46 pm
Crier
That’s an interesting point…and while the decision in Korematsu v the United States still stands, Justices Murphy’s and Jackson’s dissenting opinions make for the counterpoint and while the case did not hinge on Korematsu’s citizenship, which was not in question, the dissenting opinions do address the issue…
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:48 pm
Crier…
*****
And then, of course, there’s the mail order bride how many years our junior and the anchor baby.. Sounds suspicious to me…it just ain’t nachurrel,,,
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
1:48 pm
but what “moral leadership” is he saying we “lost”?
What a stunningly foolish question. Reading is fundamental.
There is none so blind as he who will not see…
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
1:50 pm
Illegal invaders are NOT citizens
they’s prolly some kinda animal
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
1:52 pm
Woodstock mike I just read that same politico article
Sure appears to be a significant victory for AZ in many ways
They will still be able to check immigration status of anyone stopped
josef
June 25th, 2012
1:54 pm
BROSEPHUS, PAUL
Oh no! The EOI is kudzu so therefore we are illegal invaders! Call ICE,,,
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
1:55 pm
Sure appears to be a significant victory for AZ
Lil’ Ant-knee shore don’t think so.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77791.html
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
1:55 pm
“There should be NONE of it overturned. Illegal invaders are NOT citizens and thus shouldn’t be covered under the Constitution.”
The Constitution is not limited to just citizens, except where specifically mentioned
barking frog
June 25th, 2012
1:57 pm
Jm
“They will still be able to check immigration status of anyone stopped”
…….
and then what?
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
1:57 pm
The fact the Romney has said that as president he would not even challenge Arizona’s law, shows what a sad direction our country’s immigration laws would go under his administration. ~Rep. Charles Gonzalez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
The Lily White Party seals it fate with this segment of the American demographic that they have never had much success with and certainly at this rate, never will…
Southern Poverty Law Center re-launches anti-immigration law hotline
June 25th, 2012
1:58 pm
MONTGOMERY, Alabama — The Southern Poverty Law Center re-launched a hotline today for people to report problems they have experienced as a result of Alabama’s immigration law.
The hotline has been operating since September, when parts of the original immigration law went into effect. But the SPLC said in a statement that recent changes to the law spurred it to remind people they can call the hotline at 800-982-1620 either to report problems or get information about changes lawmakers made to the law in the recent legislative session.
“State lawmakers have callously refused to address the humanitarian crisis created by Alabama’s anti-immigrant law,” Mary Bauer, legal director for the SPLC said in the statement. “As we continue our fight against this unconstitutional law, we want to know first-hand the suffering it is inflicting on people across the state.”
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/southern_poverty_law_center_re.html
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
2:00 pm
“they’s prolly some kinda animal”
Nope. They just aren’t legally entitled to be here.
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 25th, 2012
2:00 pm
More relating to Jay’s prior post:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speed-up-american-workers-long-hours
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
2:00 pm
“The Lily White Party seals it fate with this segment of the American demographic that they have never had much success with and certainly at this rate, never will…”
This from blog’s self-appointed and hypocritical arbiter of racism…apparently too blind to see his own bigotry.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
2:01 pm
Frog
And if they’re herr illegally, detain them if they so desire and eventually turn them over to the Feds
209 more days
June 25th, 2012
2:02 pm
Granny Godzilla – Union Thugette
June 25th, 2012
12:33 pm
This is a good thing to be sure.
AND, btw 209 more days, they can protect ALL the citizens.
If by “they” you mean the federal gov, well when are they going to enforce the laws for ALL citizens, or maybe it is unconstitutional also?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
2:04 pm
Tbs 12:19
I don’t know how one can be so flippant about something so simple
She had conflict on the first case but not the second? Go figure.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:07 pm
Jm
Isn’t one of the SCJs wife making money to campaign against the bill?
You need to take the issue up with Robert’s who stated that both should be ruling on the case.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
2:07 pm
WussyWillard/WhinyAnthony SHEETZ
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
2:08 pm
TC, you sealed your fate on the race issue long ago on this forum. No wonder you take comments not directed at you, so personally. (Still advocating to get your hero Zimmerman out of the can? LOL!)
Your racial demons are bigger than can be addressed here. But thanks for obsessing over my observations. Not…
And as Foghorn Leghorn said to that little chickenhawk, “Go away son, you bother me.”
Now go away son, you bother me…
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
2:08 pm
O.T. Interesting Pew research report showing Asians surpassing Latinos as the fastest growing immigration segment. I wonder how Democrats will pander to this group as they tend to be well educated, well employed and financially self sufficient.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18513331
TiredOfIt
June 25th, 2012
2:12 pm
” I wonder how Democrats will pander to this group ”
A better question is, what will the republicans do to offend them.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
2:13 pm
Tbs 2:07 yes I recall Roberts view. Probably a political decision because an important ruling with a missing 9th would not be viewed positively
On it’s face, kagan should definitely be out, and probably Thomas too
John Birch
June 25th, 2012
2:14 pm
Normal – They’re being recruited illegally. the DREAM act includes citizenship for military service but right now that’s still a dream.
My grandparents and father came to this country in the bottom of a boat seeking a better life. They did it legally but I don’t particularly blame the illegals. I blame both parties for failing to enforce the law and SCOTUS for not acting in what I believe is the best interest of America. However, SCOTUS interprets constitutionality, without regard to whether or not it’s in America’s interest. I also don’t like the trend toward increasing executive power, whether it was Bush or Obama doing it.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:16 pm
Recon
Not sure. A good place for you to start checking would be to goggle for a breakdown and reason as to why Asian’s voted for Obama in 08.
just sayn
PS: are you ok when a Repub panders to a demographic? Whether you admit it or not, they do it just as much. It is about politics not D or R. Only difference is that each side is hard pressed to admit their candidate does it, while they cry about other side doing it.
John Birch
June 25th, 2012
2:16 pm
Jamvet – Is Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty or did the SCOTUS overturn that today too?
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
2:16 pm
“TC, you sealed your fate on the race issue long ago on this forum. No wonder you take comments not directed at you, so personally. (Still advocating to get your hero Zimmerman out of the can? LOL!)”
The challenge I issued to you last Friday still stands, JV: I am either a racist like you say (strange that I would marry a Latina, though) or you are a liar who delights in making false accusations.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/22/t-splost-ballot-language-misleading/?cp=4#comment-989840
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:17 pm
Jm
Thanks for the reply. Was wondering why you seemed to be reluctant to call out Thomas. Almost appeared it was for political reasons and not principle. I too think they should both be out on this vote, however even without Roberts saying anything, those two were not going anywhere
Bruno
June 25th, 2012
2:18 pm
Don’t know about y’all, but there’s only one SCOTUS decision that I’m concerned with right now: The (un)Constitutionality of using the Interstate Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase a for-profit product. Unless this obvious misuse of the Commerce Clause is struck down, it will be “Anything Goes” moving forward. Based upon the Kelo vs. New London case, it’s obvious to me how the Lib justices feel about the matter.
deegee
June 25th, 2012
2:20 pm
I saw the article about Asians surpassing Latinos as the fastest growing immigration segment. The article also mentioned that Asians typically affiliate with the Democrat party. This is no macaca.
Bruno
June 25th, 2012
2:20 pm
Special for Brothers JamVet and Normal–”Mr. President” by Shawn Phillips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcXqyQ3_Rqo
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
2:21 pm
At some point there will need to be comprehensive reform of our immigration process. It should begin by securing our borders and cleaning up the Green Card backlogs. Next an overhaul of our immigration laws and how they should be enforced. We then need to address the illegal alien issue. Currently we have an administration that’s addressing only part of these issues by fiat. Until we get this president out of office and the party of irresponsibility no longer controlling the Senate real immigration reform won’t be possible.
Old Timer
June 25th, 2012
2:21 pm
I’m confused here. If, as some of you assert, only people with legal residency or citizenship can get driver’s licenses, wouldn’t the existence of such a license be de facto proof of legal residence? How would giving Arizona police the power to determine legal residency after making a traffic stop make any difference here?
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
2:23 pm
“Until we get this president out of office and the party of irresponsibility no longer controlling the Senate real immigration reform won’t be possible.”
I wish it were that simple, Recon. I am afraid that we are not going to get much of anything done in the poisonous atmosphere that now exists in DC, where concerns for one’s party override concerns for America.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
2:25 pm
“The article also mentioned that Asians typically affiliate with the Democrat party.”
I think that may be more political hope on the part of some rather than reality. I’ve been associated with many and haven’t found that to be the case.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:25 pm
Recon
You mean like we witnessed from 2001 to 2007, right?
hahahahaha
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:26 pm
Recon @ 2:25
Pew Research begs to differ
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:29 pm
Recon
Seems to be about 50 / 50
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/20/Romney-Needs-the-Asian-Vote-to-Shrink-the-Ethnic-Gap.aspx#page1
When you get a chance to reply, are you ok with Republicans pandering for votes?
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
2:33 pm
TBS,
A lot of people obviously voted for Obama in 08. I don’t think there’s a guarantee they all will once again in November 012. I think the 010 reality gives some credence to that possibility.
deegee
June 25th, 2012
2:33 pm
There was a republican presidency, senate and congress from January, 2001 til January, 2007. They never even mentioned tax reform or the deficit. There was a failed attempt to pass immigration reform in the summer of 2006. Our esteemed Senator Saxby Spineless was for it before he was against it. It died in the Senate because they caved in to the hysterical, xenophobic dittoheads screaming “AMNESTY!” Now we have to endure the likes of Mittens making overtures to comprehensive immigration reform. Hypocrites.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
2:37 pm
TBS@2:26 they can differ. @2:29….absolutely.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:37 pm
Recon
2010 with only 35% or so of the electorate voting is not a true indicator of who will win the WH.
See 1994 as a perfect example and the outcome in 96
Long way to go, but I see Obama winning by a very slim margin. To me it will be like 2004. It wasn’t because people were enamored with Bush (his approval rating told us that, much like Obama), but Kerry in the end couldn’t sway the voters. I think this will be the same, but still a long way to go
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
2:43 pm
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli bill) was signed into law by Reagan in 1986. According to the wiki, it:
1) required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
2) made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
3) granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
4) granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously.
I guess the next bill is going to have to be a lot more effective than this one. A collusion of law enforcement, businesses and politicians I think rendered this bill inert. We are going to have to start learning from history if we want to get anywhere.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
2:46 pm
TBS,
I agree the election for president will be very close, however, when you say ” winning by a very slim” margin that also means that he could lose by a very slim margin. As for 2010 perhaps not the White House but it may portend difficulties for Democrats in the Senate.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
2:51 pm
Recon @ 2:46
Agreed. House margin will be close to the same imo, however the Senate is very much in play. I could see Obama winning and the Dems still lose the Senate. Romney wins, Repubs certainly win the Senate imo
That Black Guy
June 25th, 2012
3:18 pm
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
1:55 pm
“There should be NONE of it overturned. Illegal invaders are NOT citizens and thus shouldn’t be covered under the Constitution.”
The Constitution is not limited to just citizens, except where specifically mentioned
______________________________________________________________
Is it me or have you noticed some of those who constantly reference the constitution have no idea what IS/IS NOT in it or how it is applied?
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
3:44 pm
“Is it me or have you noticed some of those who constantly reference the constitution have no idea what IS/IS NOT in it or how it is applied?”
Sounds like Obama does it not?
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
3:47 pm
Let’s keep it simple:
Them there libruls promise them illegal aliens, housing, food stamps, drivers license, and to take our jobs and all they has to do is vote democratic. Now them republicans just offer opportunity and that jest aint good nuff.
(Rush) Scalia’s Dissent on Arizona Case « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
June 25th, 2012
4:17 pm
[...] Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law (blogs.ajc.com) [...]
G Mare 71(PLEASE VOTE NO ON TSPLOST)
June 25th, 2012
4:43 pm
Normal@1:21
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
June 25th, 2012
6:27 pm
You Democrats are in a tough situation here. You would like for folks to have increased wages, but you covet the illegals’ votes much more. When you increase the minimum wage, unemployment increases, particularly among the young. What is a liberal to do?
getalife
June 25th, 2012
7:20 pm
After reading Krugman today, we are back to 1931 and here is the proof:
http://twitter.com/sandeemusready/status/216634833588326400/photo/1/large
ld
June 25th, 2012
10:41 pm
Expect new laws aimed at encouraging self-deportation.