SCOTUS: Arizona Immigration Law

Healthcare may have gotten more coverage, but this is another big one.

Nytimes.com headline: In Arguments, Justices Appear Sympathetic to Contentious Part of Arizona Immigration Law

 

So this is going to be today's brawl?

 

Given that we now have more Mexicans leaving the country than staying, and that there was scant evidence they was taking our jorbs when they were here (certainly, nobody else wants to pick crops in Alabama and Georgia), I can see only one reason to persist with pushing these laws: for political gain by riling up the scared Anglos, and by "encouraging" possibly Democratic-leaning Latinos to get the hell out of Dodge.

As it's turning out, the Mexican immigration numbers are, for many areas, the economic canary in the coalmine.

EDIT: I know this is no Starman, but I can't compete on that level of genius.

 

I was hoping North Dakota would pass an immigration bill aimed at Canadians.

 

Last I checked, you have to be here legally to vote.

You are right about the mexicans leaving, but I don't think anyone expects that to continue longterm. If it does, illegal immigration will be the least of our problems.

My argument for this law is that unless you have lived in Arizona, California, Texas, you don't fully know what a huge problem this is, especially in border cities.

I've never been a "They're going to take our jobs!" guy. because as it is pointed out, US citizens aren't exactly lining up to pick peaches and plums in Northern California.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says, on this and on Obamacare.

 

I live in Arizona, and have lived on the border itself, and this is absolutely true.

That said SB1070 has not, to my mind, done anything to address real issues. It's red meat legislation, a lot of sound and fury that gets people fired up but accomplishes nothing. My hope is after the election's over (and to a large extent regardless of who ends up in the White House) they can revive comprehensive immigration reform, because this nonsense demeans the real problem. It's an embarrassing distraction and I hope it dies.

 

Isn't the whole argument just over federal preemption of state law, not the more contentious civil liberties stuff?

 

The bill is pending in committee. Perhaps a vote next week?

 

Right.

From the Times:

Also not sure why Mitt would be afraid of the SCOTUS ruling in Arizona's favor. The vote on this may very well be lopsided.

The administration lawyers again looked unprepared. They didn't have answers to the Justices questions.

If they rule that the law is in line with Federal Law, instead of contradicting it, it just makes the administration look foolish for challenging it on those grounds.

The President is supposed to be a "Constitutional Law Professor", and he's in danger of having his clock cleaned in two high profile cases.

That will just play into Romney's narrative that Obama is a "nice guy" who is "in over his head".

 

Calling Obama a nice guy doesn't win over the person with the "Don't re-nig" bumper sticker.

 

I'm sure you thought you were making a point with this post.

You'll forgive me if it eluded me.

 

Not in danger on health care.