PLANK JUNE 25, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States was mostly good news for foes of S.B. 1070, the hard-line immigration law passed by Arizona in 2010, but decidedly bad news for one person who has come out in vigorous support of it: Justice Antonin Scalia. When we last checked in with Justice Scalia during oral arguments for this case, he was in classic form—bellowing, bullying, and bombastic. Thankfully, the majority was a little more level-headed on the subject today. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, offered an elegant and persuasive response to the law’s defenders—including his colleague, who paired his dissenting opinion with a remarkable bench statement that he read out loud this morning in the Court’s chambers. It’s worth reviewing the majority’s opinion before considering Scalia’s response.
Overall, the Court accepted the argument of the law’s challengers: Arizona’s law went too far beyond federal law, interfering with federal immigration efforts and taking steps far beyond those Congress has seen fit to take. As Justice Kennedy noted in the majority’s opinion, both the states and the federal government have sovereignty, and “from the existence of two sovereigns follows the possibility that laws can be in conflict or at-cross purposes.” But in those instances, federal law trumps state law.
That, the Court reasoned, was enough to strike down many of the law’s provisions. Take Section 3, which made it a misdemeanor state crime to lack immigration registration documents. In effect, Arizona was criminalizing unlawful presence—which the federal government has declined to do. “Permitting the State to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here,” the majority concluded, “would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted.” Moreover, it could render meaningless federal officials’ authority to exercise discretion—the ability to choose when to pursue, and when not to pursue, enforcement action against a suspected undocumented immigrant. But Arizona’s law would give state officials the power to “to bring criminal charges” even when “federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.”
Section 5(C), which made it a misdemeanor for undocumented immigrants to seek work in Arizona, came in for similar criticism. Yes, it’s true that the federal government seeks to deter unlawful employment, but Congress has always chosen to penalize employers, not employees. This isn’t a simple oversight: As Kennedy noted in the opinion, history demonstrates that Congress has found it “inappropriate” to penalize people seeking work, and so Arizona’s law “involves a conflict in the method of enforcement.” Meanwhile, Section 6 allows warrantless arrests when an Arizona law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that someone has committed a removable offense under U.S. immigration law. This section, the majority wrote, gives state law enforcement officers even greater leeway that federal immigration officers have. This creates a situation wherein Arizona has “its own immigration policy,” and as Kennedy noted, that “is not the system Congress created.” Like its counterparts, Section 6 was struck down.
But Section 2(B), the law’s most controversial provision, was left unscathed. Under this section, Arizona’s law enforcement officers are required to demand identification papers from everyone they stop, arrest, or detain, provided they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is present illegally. The majority noted with approval the limits that were already placed on this section: People aren’t to be presumed to be unlawfully present if they can produce a valid state ID, and officers are prohibited from considering race “except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s].” (Obviously, the section’s critics doubt that enforcement will follow so neatly from that limiting provision.) But the majority also preached caution: “There is a basic uncertainty,” Kennedy wrote, “about what the law means and how it will be enforced.” And the majority did not preclude another challenge in the future: “This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”
Overall, then, this was a win for the Obama administration—and for the notion that the federal government, not the states, are supreme when it comes to immigration law. But the majority’s opinion did not sit well with Justice Scalia, whose behavior during oral arguments suggested that his view of the case was not limited to constitutional considerations. Of course, Scalia had legal objections to the majority’s reasoning. But he had plenty of FOX News-ready invective, too, declaring in his dissent that Arizona’s residents “feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy.” Federal officials, Scalia claims, “have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so.” Expect to hear that one circulating in right-wing circles over the next few days.
But more prominent was Scalia’s frenzied claim that the Court’s decision would have so appalled the Founders that, had it been issued in the 1780s, the United States would not exist today. I am not exaggerating. Scalia writes:
Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.” […] Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.
This isn’t just a jaw-dropping assertion. It’s quite the sleight of hand. The second part of Scalia’s imagined provision—saying that immigration powers “will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate”—refers not the Arizona case, but to last week’s presidential directive concerning DREAM Act immigrants. So it doesn’t even belong in Scalia’s hypothetical scenario, which allegedly concerns the Court’s holding today (rather than, say, everything about immigration that’s been bugging him lately). The president’s directive was not before the Court. So why did Scalia include it at all?
To be honest, your answer is as good as mine. Scalia made a cursory effort to link his argument to the Arizona case, but the presence of this digression seems to me entirely political. Scalia’s free to score political points whenever he chooses, but to do so from the Court’s chambers—all while claiming to be the proponent of unbiased, objective originalism—is mendacious in the extreme, and transparent to boot. In that sense, Justice Kennedy’s call in the majority opinion for “searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse” on the hotly-contested issue of immigration could be read not only as a worthy goal for the country, but as an excessively-gentle admonition of his colleague.
32 comments
"The president’s directive was not before the Court. So why did Scalia include it at all?" Because the case concerned conflict between Federal and State law and policy concerning illegal immigration, and the Federal Gov't's most recent avowed policy (stated by the Secretary of Homeland Security) has been to suspend enforcement of the law. The (to this point, tacit) lack of enforcement of existing immigration law by the Federal Gov't was the explicit reason for the Arizona law's existence, and yet that de facto lack of enforcement by the executive has been held in the controlling opinion to exclude supplementary efforts by the states. Thus Scalia's objection to it, though there is indeed the tie-in by innuendo to the more explicit recent policy. How is any of this anything other than obviously relevant?
- Curran1
June 25, 2012 at 6:14pm
If the delegates to the convention knew that New York would have the same number of representatives in the Senate as North Dakota, would they not "have rushed to the exits". Or that state sovereignty included the right of succession, would they not "have rushed to the exits". Or that the president alone had the authority to engage America in foreign wars, would they not "have rushed to the exits". I am not alone in suspecting that Scalia is either ignorant or insane, and quite likely both.
- rayward
June 25, 2012 at 6:34pm
Maybe we should take Scalia's frenzy as a sign that the court decided to uphold ACA - that's the type of thing that could definitely push him over the edge.
- Attrill
June 25, 2012 at 7:42pm
It’s completely irrelevant, Curran, because the issue before the Court was whether the Arizona law is preempted by federal law enacted by Congress, not whether Arizona had good reasons for enacting its own law, or whether the President has been enforcing federal law. (He has been doing more to enforce it than prior presidents, but, again, that was not the issue before the Court.) Whether the President had the authority under the Constitution to promulgate his recent “dream act” directive is a completely different question. As Scalia surely knows, federal immigration law does empower the INS (now the DHS) to promulgate regulations, and vests certain discretion in the Executive Branch with regard to deportation. So it is at least unclear whether the President had the constitutional authority to promulgate the directive. For Scalia to have opined on that issue when it was not before the Court, and without briefing and argument from litigants, was not only irrelevant, but arrogant and irresponsible. Dhurtado
- NR143296
June 25, 2012 at 10:07pm
You write: "In effect, Arizona was criminalizing unlawful presence—which the federal government has declined to do." No, no, no. Your sentence is oxymoronic; i.e., that presence which is "unlawful" is, by definition, "criminal." I.e., criminals are people that perform unlawful acts. Congress has made these acts--as you concede--unlawful. But, a president oath-bound to enforce the laws and constitution has decided not to enforce these laws.
- horsefly
June 25, 2012 at 10:37pm
Horsefly- You are mistaken. Federal law does not criminalize “presence” in the United States without papers. It criminalizes “entry” into the United States without papers. It is a misdemeanor, and one can be thrown in jail for entering the country without papers. There is no federal law providing that you can be thrown in jail as punishment for being present in the country without papers. Of course, you can be deported if you are here without papers, but deportation proceedings are not criminal proceedings. As to the President’s recent directive with regard to the “dreamers,” those people have not committed any criminal act at all. So what law is it that you would like to have enforced against them? Dhurtado
- NR143296
June 25, 2012 at 10:50pm
No, Dhurtado, it's not. You make much of the fact that Federal law preempts state law. Very well, but Scalia's -relevant- objection is that the situation seems objectionable when the relevant portions of Federal Law which block state efforts by their statutory existence, can then, in actual reality, not be enforced--a situation which has been the on-the-ground reality for a quarter century, but which has recently been emphasized by the change in policy from the Obama administration. In recent commentary on the court on this site, much has been made, in the comments, of how 'facts [and social science, etc] used to matter,' as opposed to today's overemphasis on abstract points of (usually right-wing) judicial theory. I agree that the former was a preferable situation--in which case Scalia's choleric objection is on valid grounds. In support of this, I submit that reality has frequently, if intermittently, been cited as the legitimate interest of the state and the court in the past, including the recent past. If only abstract points of law had been considered valid concerns of same in the past, I shudder to think where we would be now. Probably with a court no-one listened to by virtue of historical precedent. But I digress...
- Curran1
June 25, 2012 at 10:51pm
It’s not a matter of ME making much of the preemption issue, Curran. That is the issue that was before the Court. I’m not even sure that the majority is correct in its ruling that the Arizona law is preempted. But the extent to which the Executive Branch has been enforcing federal immigration law is wholly irrelevant to the preemption question. Nothing stops Congress from enacting new legislation that grants more powers to the states. I personally think that would be a bad idea, but if you think the Executive has not done enough to enforce immigration laws, and that states should thus be given more power, you should look to Congress. Scalia has no business invoking his policy preferences to argue that the Court should simply dispense with the Supremacy Clause. Dhurtado
- NR143296
June 25, 2012 at 11:56pm
Dhurtado, I still think it's a bit odd to insist that the point of law is all that matters, regardless of what's actually happening, and I also think such a mindset would (and does) lead to poor legal decisions, and that we were better off when much of our Supreme court was composed of former attorneys from diverse areas, and of politicians like Earl Warren who had built a career dealing with the real world--all this rather than being a body exclusively composed of constitutional law clerks/judges whose attention to the fine points of ideology is impeccable, but who generally issue decisions damaging to society. That said, I haven't read Scalia's thing in the original, but one of his points seems to be that Arizona is in compliance with -Congress's- legislation on the matter, and comes into conflict only with the Executive's actions on the matter. This is why he says Arizona is in compliance, and complains not about Congress, but about the administration.
- Curran1
June 26, 2012 at 12:12am
In objecting to the finding that his colleagues made in the case before them, which involved the degree to which states may or may not legislate on an issue, immigration law enforcement, that the feds have traditionally and constitutionally reserved for themselves, Scalia made a reference to a completely different issue. This was the question as to whether there should be a general suspension of deportations -- which the president (in line with the federal sovereignty in immigration law) has used executive authority to decide -- for children who have grown up in the U.S. and are American in every way except their legal status, about which they as kids could do nothing. There may be no such individuals in Arizona, or there may be scores of thousands. In any case, Scalia doesn't know and his comments seem to have little to do with the actual questions facing the Court. Now, if the remaining clause goes into action, and the AZ police forces and sheriff's offices start hassling everyone who looks Mexican, maybe he'll find the same question coming back to him and the other justices at a future point. Or, to put it another way, one might even take Arizona's position on immigration and still conclude that the president was right on humane grounds to make the order he did last week. Scalia was confusing law and politics.
- ironyroad
June 26, 2012 at 12:50am
NR143296- I was responding to what was written in the editorial--that Arizona was seeking to criminalize "unlawful presence." That sounded oxymoronic, because if the writer is correct, that is, if their presence is "unlawful," then they are criminals (not felons, criminals). Thus, Arizona was seeking to criminalize that which is already criminal. If their presence is not, in fact, "unlawful," then TNR has an ill-informed writer.
- horsefly
June 26, 2012 at 6:16am
I don't want the Supreme Court to opine on purely political matters, like Scalia did. Unfortunately, they keep doing that. When Justice Kennedy urges civil political discourse, I'm thinking, "What were you expecting after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United?" Polite cheering?
- Nusholtz
June 26, 2012 at 7:57am
So everyone here was outraged when California tried to force the EPA's hand by enacting their own pollution standards for new cars? You all championed the GOP's charge that this was federal policy and how dare the states try to interfere? That went beyond merely enforcing current federal law, California tried to raise the bar. If President Patrick Buchanan stopped enforcing a civil rights law with respect to one population and a state tried to step in to enforce the same law (imagine that, like immigration, states couldn't independently pass civil rights laws), people here would howl in outrage over the state usurping the Constitution, and not howl in outrage about how Congress and previous Presidents had passed this law and the President had taken an oath to enforce them? Yeah, right.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 8:10am
Lymon, there is too much wrong with your comment for me to give an adequate response while I am supposed to be working, but I will point out two problems: 1) Your hypotheticals shed no light on the matter at hand, because the authority of the federal government vis a vis the states, per the Constitution, is not the same regarding all areas of the law. You can't simply switch-out immigration laws for pollution regulations or civil rights and pretend you've demonstrated something meaningful. 2) This matter was before the court not because people were outraged, but because there were legitimate concerns about its constitutionality. It is hardly the height of hypocrisy to acknowledge these concerns without simultaneously mustering offense at California's pollution laws (which are irrelevant anyway, as I already mentioned).
- Fishpeddler
June 26, 2012 at 9:11am
lymon1 I don't think your examples are appropriate. National clean air policy is not contradicted by stricter state air laws the same as national immigration policy is contradicted by stricter state immigration laws unless you believe there is an amount of dirty air that the federal government is trying to promote. And civil rights are civil rights which are enforceable by affected individuals. If someone wants to sue the United States for not prosecuting a particular activity, I don't imagine them succeeding in litigation and there is a reason for that.
- Nusholtz
June 26, 2012 at 10:43am
i am with fish and nush. States are not equipped to handle immigration issues. No state can bar legal entry to anyone holding a valid visa, this is the job of the Federal government. Because of this the Federal government is responsible for all enforcement. Can Texas create a law that says they won't recognize visas from Mexico? If you let states set their own policy, where does it end? As to states enforcing federal law, the purpose of the Police is to protect and serve the community...not just the American citizen residents of that community, but everyone. If you make undocumented aliens afraid of the police you make them easy targets. The Arizona law was a legalization of rape and theft of undocumenteds. I think all sane Arizona PDs will send out notices that they will never ask for ids when it pertains to reporting crimes. You want a real solution, then issue biometric national id cards free of charge to all US citizens, the same type they offer permanent residents. You can't work without the id.
- blackton
June 26, 2012 at 11:42am
Nusholtz - So national clean air policy (we want air clean to x-degree) is not contradicted by a state policy (we want air clean to x+1 degree), but national immigration policy (we don't want any illegal immigrants) is contradicted by a state policy (we don't want any illegal immigrants). Ok. And as for civil rights, the GOP and US Chamber loves you: "Hey, people can sue for civil rights as individuals, so let's get rid of all government enforcement!" Blackton - seriously dude, you can't see the difference between Texas saying "the Federal Government says no immigrants - they have a budget deficit and can't afford to build a fence at the border so we'll pay for it" versus "the Federal Government says we should recognize Visas from Mexico, but we're not going to." That's not a slippery slope, that's a clean break. Rape? Why stop there, why not call it a holocaust? By the way, if Arizona's law was a rape and theft of immigrants, what did Israel just do to illegal immigrants who are far more sympathetic than America's (you want to talk about "rape"? Those immigrants are often fleeing from situations where the women are sure to be raped - the real thing. Nearly all of our illegal immigrants are seeking better economic opportunities). Seriously, have the courage of your convictions and start calling the Israeli government a bunch of rapists. Finally, you know that if given a choice, nearly every illegal immigrant in Arizona would prefer that law to a nationwide biometric id system where companies received the same penalty as under the Arizona law if they were caught cheating it.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 12:16pm
"Rape? Why stop there, why not call it a holocaust?" Wow. Point missed, big-time.
- Fishpeddler
June 26, 2012 at 12:31pm
I believe what Blackton is trying to point out is the distinction between the federal government saying "we will try to enforce immigration laws to the extent practicable by reality's limits on manpower and resources" and Arizona saying "we're going to make the lives of brown people miserable." Seriously. What constitutes "probable cause" for suspicion that someone is not a U.S. citizen? There is no realistic scenario where it isn't entirely race-based. Probably a good thing for the white citizens of Arizona, I guess, because I'm pretty damn sure that the vast majority of them couldn't prove their citizenship if challenged by a cop, either. (I couldn't.) But that they'll never have to worry about it was the whole point. Oh, and he wasn't talking about metaphorical or hypothetical rapes. Do you know where the most kidnappings in the United States occur? Not just Arizona, but Maricopa County-Sheriff Joe Arpaio's stomping grounds. And almost none of them get reported. Coincidence?
- janus
June 26, 2012 at 12:41pm
Lymon, the obvious difference between clean-air legislation and immigration law is that immigration impinges upon the foreign relations prerogative of the federal government. If North Dakota decides it wants cleaner or dirtier air than Canada has, then its policies are generally unaffected by whether Canada likes or dislikes them and even if they dislike them, there isn't much they can do about it. But if N.D. decides it's not going to accept Canadian passports without a special stamp issued by the state government, for example, then that is a completely different ballgame.
- ironyroad
June 26, 2012 at 1:58pm
Lymon1 If the federal government says "Chinese Yes" and Arizona says "Chinese No," that is not the same as the federal govenrment saying "Clean" and the state of California saying "Even cleaner." Pat Buchanan does not have the discretion to say people will not have civil rights. President Obama does have prosecutorial discretion.
- Nusholtz
June 26, 2012 at 2:41pm
Ironyroad - I think you are conflating two things in my post - I compared the clean-air legislation to a state trying to enforce the same federal law, not different like in Blackton's "what if Texas decides to ignore visas" example. My point is that any liberal outrage at the notion of a state acting to enforce a federal law that a President decides not to enforce (in whole or in part) is phony, and definitely doesn't turn on the legal hairsplitting the Supreme Court has to do with these cases. Fishpeddler: live by the offensive hyperbole, die by the offensive hyperbole.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 3:14pm
Nusholtz - did you see where I wrote "President" Pat Buchanan ? It's a hypothetical for "imagine when your political opposition becomes President and uses his executive powers "discretion" in a way you hate." You might also think back to the George W. Bush administration, when liberals attacked Bush's power play.As for "China Yes/China No" - you are making my point. By the way, 40% of Latinos voted for the Arizona referrendum that cracked down on employers who hired illegal immigrants (now struck). So 4 out of every 10 Arizona citizens are apparently self-hating racists.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 3:22pm
Oops, math wrong - Wikipedia's Arizona demographic numbers are confusing. SO we'll have to leave it at 4 out of every 10 Arizona Latinos are self-hating racists.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 3:28pm
I apologize for the conflation, Lymon, but even if I did that I still think that you are switching around two non-comparable issues in order to make a point that you otherwise couldn't make: more clean air for California is neither encroaching on a federal prerogative nor is it affecting basic civil rights; more immigration control/policing for Arizona is -- at least to some extent -- doing both, or potentially doing both. Your point that pro-immigrant people are being hypocritical in supporting state action to do more in one context while excoriating it in another context s only valid in a situation in which both contexts are constitutionally and indeed commonsensically comparable. They are not, however, hence your point seems to me at least to be rather weak. Incidentally, fwiw I support a rigorous control system for employment via e-verify and similar measures. It took me many years (more than 10) of H1-Bs and some complicated bureaucracy before I got my green card, so I am most defintely not one of those people who just casually romanticize queue-jumpers and illegal immigration. But the Arizona issue was clear for me: states don't get to have their own foreign policy and the basic philosophy behind the law was to make intimidation and uncertainty a way of life for anyone who doesn't look Anglo enough.
- ironyroad
June 26, 2012 at 3:38pm
lymon, down here along the route of the Train of death many young migrant women are kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery for brothels in the United States. Do you really want them to view the Police with fear and suspicion? And you did not answer my question, if you let states set their own policies, where does it end? And I simply don't understand your frustration. Migration from Mexico is at an all time low, essentially zero with as many leaving as coming. And fences? Seriously? like you never heard of boats, or tunnels, or ladders? That kind of enforcement is pretty much useless unless you want to station hundreds of thousands of agents and deploy minefields with shoot to kill orders. Again, it is not the function of a state to enforce Federal law. I don't want a DEA agent pulling people over for speeding because it is a truly horrendous misuse of their time. The status of all persons within the United States must be set by the Federal government. No exceptions. Would you really be in favor of Arizona deciding children being born to illegals are therefore not US citizens based on their own interpretation of the Constitution? Or a child born to one US citizen? The worst thing about their approach is its utter falsity. Illegals will simply move to NJ or California (and it sure as hell does not address the number one issue, people overstaying their visas) You want to fix the situation then issue everyone a biometric id card necessary for work and fine (and/or imprison) the hell out of any employer who violates it
- blackton
June 26, 2012 at 3:39pm
Lymon1 I did see where it was a hypothetical, but did you see where I said it wasn't appropriate, (as in, it is distinguishable from the current facts)?
- Nusholtz
June 26, 2012 at 3:48pm
By the way, 40% of Latinos voted for the Arizona referrendum that cracked down on employers who hired illegal immigrants (now struck). What do polls have to do with it? I am sure many blacks were against miscegnation as well so because most blacks and whites used to support it that made it ok? Most Americans support the idea of getting rid of recission and lifetime caps, banning denial of care due to pre existing conditions, and having guaranteed issue but most Americans are against the Mandate without which (or something akin to it) the other elements are impossible. It is not self hatred, it is nothing more than stupidity. I get states rights, but US customs and immigration enforcement is a Federal responsibility. If you don't like the way they are doing their job vote for Romney because there won't be any jobs in a few years so no immigrants would ever bother coming.
- blackton
June 26, 2012 at 4:02pm
"Fishpeddler: live by the offensive hyperbole, die by the offensive hyperbole." O.M.G.
- Fishpeddler
June 26, 2012 at 4:25pm
horsefly- So your point was to criticize the author's word choice? I.e, he should have said that the Arizona law criminalizes presence without papers, rather than "unlawful presence"? OK, fair enough. So you do understand that federal law does not criminalize presence without papers? Therefore, the Arizona law is different than federal law? As to this: "But, a president oath-bound to enforce the laws and constitution has decided not to enforce these laws." You do understand, don't you, that federal immigration law vests the executive with discretion regarding who it does and does not deport, even among people who otherwise are deportable? Dhurtado
- NR143296
June 26, 2012 at 7:07pm
blackton - So let me get this straight: The citizens of Arizona are a bunch of rapist wannabes because there is a sex slave trade and by making these women fearful of the police Arizona is thus perpetuating it? And that applies to every nation where the police have the power to check a person's immigration status? There actually are some cases that argue for the point I think you're trying to make, but the example you give is ridiculous: a woman kidnapped and sent to the U.S. to be a slave isn't going to avoid the police because that police officer might send her back to where she was kidnapped from. (Actually I think the way to cut down on the sex slave trade is the same as with illegal immigration: go after the ultimate employers). I did answer your question regarding the alleged slippery slope, or at least give an absolute bright line where you know where the state power ends: when the state enforcement conflicts with the law itself. Your example is a flat out usurping of a federal law. In contrast, Arizona wasn't saying "we disagree with federal law and this should be our turf" it was saying "we AGREE with the federal law and if you guys can't enforce it for lack of resources, why should we have to suffer?" The problem people have here is that they DON"T agree with the federal law, or at least don't want it fully enforced (and not because of "lack of resources.") Ok, let's assume 40% of blacks -were- against miscegnation (I presume you're matching my statistic when you say "many blacks were against miscegnation" and not "many" in sheer number) - yes, that would be telling, NOT as to whether miscegnation is moral/just/should be legal but as to whether the opposition to miscegnation at the time was per-se racist. Of course it wasn't self-hatred for those Hispanic voters - my point is that their motivation wasn't to make their own lives miserable, it was a very American "I've got mine, now get lost before you take any of it" move. I addressed your "immigration from Mexico is down" argument in another thread - first, illegal immigration goes up and down with the economy, but the after-effects on the economy and social services continue because of our unique birthright citizenship. Did illegal immigration levels stay constant after the Reagan amnesty? Let's see what happens to those levels now that states can't create the same hostile environments for employers and the political winds pointing more towards some sort of green card amnesty (yes, I know, the economy is in recovery making it hard to draw conclusions from such numbers) As for Romney: here's a concept that apparently has escaped you: it is possible to disagree with a candidate on one or more important issues and not be a supporter of that candidate's opponent. Happy to hear you don't have that problem with Obama - the MSNBC t-shirt is on me.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 10:12pm
Irony, You deserve a better response than I have energy, but basically I think we just disagree on how important that distinction is. This doesn't strike me as a passionate debate amongst law professors, but one mostly driven by those who passionately hate the Arizona law on its merits. You want a Constitutional issue, let's take school desegregation. Imagine it's 1963 and President Wallace decides he doesn't have the money to fund buses to integrate schools, and an alternative-world Mississippi says "we will fund the buses, and we'll send the state guard in to protect the kids going into the white schools" and the Wallace Administration says "no, you can't." You can nitipik the examples but I think my point, which is about emotion, stands.
- Lymon1
June 26, 2012 at 10:19pm