llegal Immigrants gave way to Undocumented Workers which is now giving way to Men Of Mexican Ancestral Heritgage.
The law is obviously not directed towards citizens so the first claim has little standing. In regards to the supremacy clause, in the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute.” Any logical person know the Arizona law is an enforcement of current federal statutes.
Can an argument be made that a state law is void where it conflicts with Federal policy? What about a conflict with Federal agency rulings?
I am asking this in all seriousness.
CNN, what’s that? (s
I never watch CNN. They haven’t got a clue why they are so low in the ratings.
These two are simply useful idiots.
“the 14 amendment which guarantees minorities full rights as U.S. citizens”
It does nothing of the sort. It guarantees citizenship to all people born in the U.S. Which might include what we call “minorities,” but, as I said, only the ones who are born in the U.S.
Not a lawyer but my hunch is if the law goes into effect as planned then most likely the judge has no intention of issuing an injunction.
Disgraceful story for Disgraceful journalism..