The Supreme Court Tackles State Immigration Policy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-24/supreme-court-tackles-state-immigration-policy
An estimated 11 million people live in the United States -- illegally. Two years ago, Arizona passed the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in recent U.S. history, inspiring other states to follow suit. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether that law is constitutional. It allows police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling. Supporters say it makes up for weak enforcement efforts by the federal government. A ruling is expected this summer, in the middle of the presidential campaign. Guest host Susan Page and guests discuss how far states can go to enforce immigration laws.
Guests
Tamar Jacoby
president, Immigration Works USA and fellow at the New America Foundation
Steven Camarota
director of research, Center for Immigration Studies.
Angela Kelley
vice president for immigration policy and advocacy, Center for American Progress.
Jonathan Turley
professor, The George Washington University Law School
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Adam Renner wrote:
Look him up, he "wrote" the law. Do the work. Don't be cute.
Cheers.
The law isn't racist, so how does that argument hold water. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep illegal aliens out of country. I believe persons should be removed no matter what their country of origin. As a matter of fact I'm significantly more concerned with those coming from Canada, as they are more likely to hold positions I would be vying for. So am I racist against caucasians? Throwing out the racist card simply because you disagree with a stance is a form of intellectual terrorism. If you want to have a conversation then respect the others point of view while still making your own.
Cute? You think accusing somebody of being a racist is "cute"? I read about Russell Pearce. Other than not vetting his associates or his emails very well, I agree with his stand on immigration law. We ARE a nation of laws, though many have forgotten that.
Frankly, I think you oppose him because he's a Mormon. Go ahead, deny it. Religious bigotry is as bad as racial bigotry.
Feels nice, doesn't it?
@Patsy Nomore:
You state that the economic devastation is "Made in China", not "Made in Mexico". That is a superficial statement. Before NAFTA, there were few US firms with operations in Mexico; today there are about 17,000. "60 Minutes" even did a show last year about Newton, Iowa, the hometown of Maytag, which moved all its operations to Mexico (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-6999868.html). So trying to deflect attention onto China is wrong. Plenty of US business has in fact fled south to Mexico.
Go back to 1993. We were told then that 1) US jobs would not flee south due to NAFTA, and 2) NAFTA would decrease illegal immigration from Mexico by raising living standards there. In retrospect we can see what a cruel hoax that was. NAFTA lowered trade barriers in agriculture and destroyed the livelihood of millions of Mexican peasants. The Mexican government was given a period of time to prepare for this and did NOTHING. They just dumped all these peasants on the US. So in a nutshell we exported jobs and imported poverty, despite promises by Clinton, Gore and a host of others that this would not happen.
On top of that, we were promised in 1987 when Simpson-Mazzolli was passed that there would be strict enforcement of immigration laws going forward, and no more amnesties. But enforcement was defunded by Ted Kennedy and his buddies on Capitol Hill, and now we are predictably being pushed to grant yet another amnesty.
It is long past time for the federal government to shut up and keep its word. The public favors enforcement of current law by 2 to 1. That should count in a democracy.
Actually voted I for his Mormon opponent, Jerry Lewis. Have you of the Utah Compact? Go away troll.
I do not understand why this is an issue at all. People are looking at this as a racial issue, but it's not. The police are only conducting their normal operations and only stopping people who they would have stopped anyway. It becomes an issue when those who are stopped cannot prove their identification. But, this would happen with anyone. If I were stopped, driving without a licence for instance, and the police cannot prove I have a licence through any means, I would be detained. Are you suggesting that something different should happen if they believe the person stopped is not a legal citizen?
have you heard of. typo
No discussion about immigration is complete without stating WHAT is the attraction? Jobs. Corporations/businesses hire illegals because they work cheap and don't ask for retirement/health benefits. Thus increasing corporate profits to the detriment of our economy (social security program, health care, and unemployment benefits).
Politicians are delighted to have this wedge issue to solidify their constituents, corporations are thrilled with their profits, and uneducated/ racist Americans have yet another reason to rant. It works out well. For them.
For the rest of us, the solution of decent wages for all to increase the tax base/boost the economy, accompanied by increased taxes on the wealthy is a dream.
Adam Renner wrote:
"Actually voted I for his Mormon opponent, Jerry Lewis. Have you of the Utah Compact? Go away troll."
Utah Compact? And that applies to AZ how?!
Read: I have no answer except obfuscation and invective. Sad.
Gail Weitz wrote:
"Politicians are delighted to have this wedge issue to solidify their constituents, corporations are thrilled with their profits, and uneducated/ racist Americans have yet another reason to rant. It works out well. For them."
You're wrong, Gail. Pure and simple and your insinuation that anyone opposed to illegal entry is racist, is again, insulting and false. I am as conservative as conservative gets. Any regular here will back me on that, some to their everlasting consternation. Listen up ... Crack down as hard on business as on illegals. Absolutely. And it will help stanch the flow across the boarder. But many will still come on the chance that life will be better for them here than Mexico. It's not that hard to improve your lot just by crossing the Rio Grande. Which means other measures need to be taken as well, whether it's an ID or a wall or some combination of things.
Your position seems to be, let everybody in. That's national suicide - and, by the way, unconstitutional. It's the FG's job to control the boarders. This is an old problem, but circumstances demand that it needs a new solution.
Apparently there must be a hell of a lot legal by birth children of illegals who do vote that want their illegal parents and other family members to be amnestied in by the democrats. What else can explain the overwhelming support by Hispanics for the democrat party.
libertarians r us wrote:
"Apparently there must be a hell of a lot legal by birth children of illegals who do vote "
All it takes is time. You just have to wait until they're old enough to vote.
That is why the 14th amendment needs to be clarified.
Easy to tell fascist-bots are getting paid when you see the crude formula they use to mechanically refute every comment. Again and again the same pattern plays out as if they have been trained intensely, are being monitored and/or are working from a manual. Several screenames are probably the same person doing multiple posts. My advice is not to reply to them . It will hurt their income and extinguish their anti-social behavior.
Well, look who it is! Risen from the dead is GLH. A lot of accusation, zero facts, instead it's "Easy to tell", "probably", blah, blah, blah.
You want fascism? Here's fascism:
The People’s Rights Amendment
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
As one editorial writer said, "Given Sections 1 and 2, it is quite clear that Section 3 is a lie. Yes, it really is that stupid."
This is little more than an end-run around the failure of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to stifle speech. Note that the liberal press is exempted.
In a word, this proposed amendment is fascism, and it is born of evil.
I hope the staff of the DrShow has continued to read the comments as they come in.
On the day of this program there was a picture in the Ft. Payne Alabama Times Journal (times-journal.com) of Southern Baptist Deacon Governor Bentley and about 40 3rd and 4th graders from Crossville, Alabama almost all Mexicans.
The Governor is a warm and kind figure towering over them all.
Not only coincides with your program and the panelists comments about hypocrisy and the need for triangulation, but also the weekend of the rollout of United Methodist Bishop Will Willimon, the former Chaplain at Duke and his Jeremiad book, The Bishop; about his 8 year stay in the State.
This last year he has been outspoken with the ecumenical Christian leaders here on immigration, while the Southern Baptists with the exception of one panel at Baptist school Samford, in Bham, have been struck mute.
The national Headquarters of the Women's Missionary Union of the SBC is in Bham. They may face the same stunned apprehension of Latin and South America; like Mormon missionaries in the coming decades as evangelical aspirations from white Baptists and Mormons call for explanation.
Kris Kobach is as close to Mitt Romney, as in Alabama he is to Baptist fundamentalists Mrs. Albert Lee Smith and State Senator Beason.
Let the history as it is being developed be clear about this matter.
I hope you have Bishop Willimon as guest on your program this mid September to early October.
Keener2 wrote:
"I hope you have Bishop Willimon as guest on your program this mid September to early October"
Why? Why would you want to wait? Why not do the program now? Immigration is topical NOW so why would you want to wait? The only reason I think that you would suggest "September to early October" is your feeble attempt to tie Presidential candidate Mitt Romney to individuals that you feel are anti-immigration, or worse yet, racists, in an attempt to garner the Hispanic vote for your failed President. Does that sound about right, Keener2? Go ahead, deny it. That doesn't make you a good person who cares about immigration. It makes you a partisan hack.
I am very upset with the division of the court republican vs democrat. this makes the court very political, and less judicial.
our founding fathers did not have this in mind when they created our country.