Immigration

Getting Romney to take a position is like trying to nail Jello to the wall

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Willard "Mittens" Romney believes that he is entitled to be the next president. As his wife said, "it's his turn." So Mittens has this attitude that he should just be handed the job. "I don't have to answer any questions or tell you what I am going to do." You don't want to be that guy, Mittens — people really hate that guy.

Mittens is in Scottsdale, Arizona today for a fundraiser (probably attended by the universe of Koch brothers' affiliated entities and their evil minions in the state of Maricopa) — the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the majority of SB 1070 and left the "papers please" provision to another day after the Arizona Courts are done ruling on it.

After a day of being hounded by reporters, Mittens gave his typical non-responsive answer. He has a problem making a commitment. Romney Wishes Courts Gave States ‘More Latitude’ On Immigration:

Getting an opinion from Mitt Romney on immigration has been like pulling teeth after the Supreme Court’s decision on SB 1070 Monday, but the presumptive Republican nominee finally offered up some words on the ruling at a fundraiser in Arizona.

“Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and, you know, given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws,” he said, according to NBC.

Did you even read the opinion, Mittens? The Court was pretty emphatic that immigration is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and that express or implied federal preemption precludes the state from acting on immigration matters on its own. Only where there is cooperation between the state and federal government under an express provision of federal law — and the Court did not expressly find cooperation or hinderance by Arizona on this ground since that provision of SB 1070 has been on hold pending this opinion — does the state have a narrowly defined and limited role to play. "States Rights" Tenthers like Governor Jan Brewer and Mittens just had the foundation for their arguments blown away today by the Court.

Talking Points Memo earlier reported that Romney Spokesman Dodges 20 22 Questions On Romney’s Immigration Position:

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been extremely careful not to take a clear position on either Arizona’s SB 1070 law or the Supreme Court decision on Monday that ruled parts of it unconstituional. In an exchange with the traveling press, transcribed by Politico, Romney spokesman Rick Gorka was asked over 20 times by reporters to clarify the candidates position on either the law or the ruling.

Syllabus of SCOTUS decision in Arizona, et al. v. United States

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona, et al. v. United States (.pdf), cite as 567 U. S. ____ (2012), is some 76 pages in the .pdf format. The Syllabus of the opinion, however, will tell you the substance of the Court's decision. I have added emphasis to some portions of the Syllabus.

An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to“establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories ofaliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.

President Obama’s statement on SCOTUS decision in Arizona v. US

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States: I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law.  What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is … Read more

Arizona DREAMERS to protest Willard ‘Mittens’ Romney’s visit to Arizona today

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Willard "Mittens" Romney has terrible timing. The media villagers should nail him down on SB 1070 (Romney's anti-immigrant advisor is Kris Kobach, the author of SB 1070), as well as nail him down on the Obama administration's "DREAM Act-Lite" policy. No more evasion or slippery responses unchallenged by the media villagers.

Press release from DRM Capitol Group: 

Arizona DREAMers to Protest Mitt Romney’s Arizona Visit for his opposition to President Obama’s new directive 

Scottsdale, AZ – On Monday June 25th, Arizona DREAMers in Phoenix will hold a press conference with Latino leaders on Mitt Romney’s visit to Arizona. The DREAMers will also be at his Scottsdale fundraiser where they will demand that he directly respond to whether he supports President Obama’s new immigration policy.  

Most recently, Mitt Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said President Obama’s decision not to deport undocumented students would be reviewed and could be repealed by Romney if he becomes president. “All of these are subject to review and repeal,” Gillespie said in an interview on CNN. 

After over a week of refusing to say whether or not he’d repeal the Obama administration’s immigration action, the Latino community is taking his silence as a clear opposition to President’s new policy. This places Romney on the wrong side of an issue important to Latinos. According to recent poll, Latinos overwhelmingly support the president’s action to stop the deportation of undocumented youth.   

Who/What: Press conference with local Latino elected officials and Rally in Scottsdale 

When: 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 25, 2012 and 11:45AM Scottsdale Rally

Where: Press Conference: State Capitol, 1700 W Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007

Rally:  Scottsdale Plaza Resort – 7200 North Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, 85253 

###

For more imformation please contact: Erika Andiola at (480) 278-6843 or eandiola@drmcapitolgroup.com

Additional Press release:


SCOTUS gives split decision on SB1070: UPDATE on Tucson protest

by

by Pamela Powers Hannley The US Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision Arizona's infamous SB1070. They struct down several parts of the "papers please" law, but kept the "papers please" part. From the Huffington Post… WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration … Read more