Supreme Court and immigration
An interesting look at how the Supreme Court decision on SB 1070 (which is supposed to come later this month) will affect the presidential race. I disagree with Steven Camarota on most everything, but on this I think he's on target.
"Neither of them is sure whether the position that they've staked out on immigration hurts or helps them on balance," said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that favors vigorous enforcement of immigration laws. "Obama doesn't want to alienate all kinds of voters in battleground states that he might (if he emphasizes immigration reform on the campaign stump). And it's the same with Romney: He's just not sure."
Indeed, the key is "battleground." The election is not won nationally, so Obama and Romney will tailor messages to particular states. Take North Carolina, for example, which went to Obama in 2008 but is an uphill climb this year. Since the Latino electorate is so small, Obama will not likely trumpet immigration since it could in fact rub other voters the wrong way.
Another point is that the election is five months away, so will outrage last that long? The answer could potentially be "yes" if the decisions gives the green light to states and leads to a rash of new restrictive laws.
As always, though, we need to be very careful not to overstate. Overall, this election may hinge more on Greece than anything else.
2 comments:
Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research, San Diego, Professor Marjorie Cohn : "Racial Profiling Legalized in Arizona", April 16, 2012 - This article argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment, is void for vagueness, and violates the Supremacy Clause
You can download the Full Article in the provided link at the bottom of this note. This professor speaks out very clearly and without reservations or fears.
Abstract:
In 2010, Arizona enacted S.B. 1070, which legalizes racial profiling in that state, and effectively converts local law enforcement officials into de facto U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. This article argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment, is void for vagueness, and violates the Supremacy Clause. S.B. 1070 also suffers from practical deficiencies in that it will harm communities and increase harassment of Latinos. In addition, it runs afoul of universally recognized human rights. Other states have passed laws similar to S.B. 1070. The constitutionality of S.B. 1070 is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will issue a decision by the end of its 2011-2012 term. The Court is reviewing an opinion by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturning some provisions of S.B. 1070 as violative of the Supremacy Clause.
Social Science Research Network
Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 168, 2012
Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper No. 2040532
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2040532
*************************
You have a very nice and motivating posting style, it makes me read your articles with great interest.
Post a Comment