Posted on 05/26/2011 7:53:43 AM PDT by SmithL
The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.That should open the floodgates!
Is this not HUGE?!?!?!?!
So if the Court is rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration policy or enforcement, that could bode well for when the Supremes have to rule on the Arizona immigration law. The liberals will explode if the Supreme Court would uphold the immigration law.
About time we have a say!
No Jobs nobody comes here.
As a legal precedent, this could be very big. If the court is saying that states do indeed have a role to play in immigration policy, it could pave the way for the Arizona immigration law to be upheld. And pave the way for other states to do the same.
Heck, it could even pave the way for a future Republican administration to actually enforce the immigration laws on the books now.
10th Amendment PING
I hope that’s the way it’ll work.
Can we get this in breaking news?
This is a double home run for AZ, because the feds are challenging SB 1070, their new immigration law, “on the grounds that it pre-empts federal authority.”
This means that unless the feds change their argument about SB 1070, the Supreme Court will find the same way for it.
Most excellent news!
Series too!
w00t!
>>Heck, it could even pave the way for a future Republican administration to actually enforce the immigration laws on the books now.<<
Let’s not get too carried away. That would require cajones and a spinal column, neither of which Republican administrations seem to be able to wrestle up when the chips are down. It has something to do with losing the Hispanic voter, who are soon to outnumber the White voters across America.
>>
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona’s employer sanctions law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general
Kagan was recused.
Kennedy voted with the majority (must have been caught sleeping)
Not really true. The ones who want welfare will continue to swarm the country. We have to cut that off, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.