Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wise Hispanic Tells Obama To Move On

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wise Hispanic Tells Obama To Move On

    Even Sotomeyor thinks parts of SB 1070 Are OK.

    Much of the hearing was spent arguing Section 2(B) of the law.

    U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that part of the law must be ruled unconstitutional because it forces local police to detain and arrest illegal immigrants, and that would interfere with the priorities the federal government has established to seek out and deport illegal immigrants who have committed other, more serious crimes.

    Roberts said that the federal government's animosity toward that law leads him to believe that they simply don't want to know who's in the country illegally. Justice Samuel Alito asked how a state legislature could be stopped from telling its employees what to do.

    Even Sotomayor told Verrilli at one point to move on to another section of the law since his argument against Section 2(B) "is not selling very well."

  • #2
    Even Sotomeyor thinks parts of SB 1070 Are OK.

    Much of the hearing was spent arguing Section 2(B) of the law.

    U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that part of the law must be ruled unconstitutional because it forces local police to detain and arrest illegal immigrants, and that would interfere with the priorities the federal government has established to seek out and deport illegal immigrants who have committed other, more serious crimes.

    Roberts said that the federal government's animosity toward that law leads him to believe that they simply don't want to know who's in the country illegally. Justice Samuel Alito asked how a state legislature could be stopped from telling its employees what to do.

    Even Sotomayor told Verrilli at one point to move on to another section of the law since his argument against Section 2(B) "is not selling very well."

    Comment


    • #3
      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
      Even Sotomeyor thinks parts of SB 1070 Are OK.

      Much of the hearing was spent arguing Section 2(B) of the law.

      U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that part of the law must be ruled unconstitutional because it forces local police to detain and arrest illegal immigrants, and that would interfere with the priorities the federal government has established to seek out and deport illegal immigrants who have committed other, more serious crimes.

      Roberts said that the federal government's animosity toward that law leads him to believe that they simply don't want to know who's in the country illegally. Justice Samuel Alito asked how a state legislature could be stopped from telling its employees what to do.

      Even Sotomayor told Verrilli at one point to move on to another section of the law since his argument against Section 2(B) "is not selling very well." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

      Obama Solicitors are not really good lawyers, no matter you are for or against SB 1070.
      Justice Roberts started by interrupting Solicitor and telling him that no part of Federal
      challenge to SB 1070 deals with racial or ethnic profiling.
      Solicitor agreed and then proceeded to claim that state police can't check immigration status because it's federal domain.
      That's like telling state police can't book federally wanted fugitive because it's under FBI or DOJ jurisdiction.
      Even Justice Breyer replied that he saw no problem with police adding to their routine checks the immigration status checks. And how will Solicitor argue against thAt?

      The crux of issue and real question is: how do you begin to suspect that one is illegal alien?
      Either include immigration status in federal NCID database and have ALL US persons checked OR
      do not check any.

      But immigration violation , to be added to NCID database, must be elevated to a level of crime.
      Or it has to be explained why administrative violations should be included in such database.

      In any event, argument could develop along those lines and law could be thrown out as racial profiling
      unless enforced within 70 miles of border or unless other than ethnic/racial traits used for profiling.


      Instead, Solicitor says state can't enforce federal law because it's federal law.
      Obviously that doesn't sound convincing.

      Comment

      Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

      Home Page

      Immigration Daily

      Archives

      Processing times

      Immigration forms

      Discussion board

      Resources

      Blogs

      Twitter feed

      Immigrant Nation

      Attorney2Attorney

      CLE Workshops

      Immigration books

      Advertise on ILW

      EB-5

      移民日报

      About ILW.COM

      Connect to us

      Questions/Comments

      SUBSCRIBE

      Immigration Daily



      Working...
      X