photo credit: Daquella manera[/caption]This blogger has recently written on both sides of the Arizona Immigration law (
A Preview Of Both Legal Positions On The Arizona Immigration Law, Visiting Mexican President Is Critical of The Arizona Immigration Law, Showdown In The West Over Illegal Immigration), and, apparently, the Houston Chronicle is reporting that the presiding judge followed court precedents, which addressed the main immigration issues in this case.
To reiterate from my earlier blog, which spelled out the legal avenues available for the parties involved, the judge chose the legal position that Federal Law on the Immigration issue trumps Arizona law, which was enacted to address the same issue. In essence, the judge rejected the concurrent jurisdiction position, as offered by Arizona, by positing that, as to the area of law allowing the police to ask, after a legitimate stop, one’s immigration status, was unconstitutional.
The judge basically puts off what will be had from the high court; those who are rejoicing about the judge’s decision today will be weeping when this court is decided by the Roberts Court. The Conservative Supreme Justices on the court place much credence into 9th and 10th Amendments jurisprudence – so Arizona’s position is not dead, especially if in its appeal, it stresses the “unfunded mandate” of leaving the Federal Law on the issue of immigration to speak for the states like Arizona. No doubt that Arizona, along with other states, will bring before the court irony that so called sanctuary states themselves do not adhere to the Fed law governing the issue. Moreover, I am not certain that Democrats want this issue to be part of the political discourse for the mid-term elections because all the polling says otherwise.
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق