Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Jerry Kammer and Donald Kerwin Debate Immigration Issues (Video)
2. Where are the H-1B Geniuses? (Blog)
3. Obama's Rule of Lawlessness (Blog)
4. Holder Sends Signal Supporting Marriages of Gay Immigrants (Blog)
5. Just Another Mafia (Blog)
6. An Intriguing (but Probably Flawed) Idea - the Sacrifice Bunt Visa (Blog)
7. Illinois Governor Moves to Protect Illegal Alien Criminals (Blog)
8. Republicans and Immigration (Blog)
9. U.S. Islands' Immigration Policies Overruled by Mainland Standards (Blog)
10. USCIS Spends Too Much Time on Tiny Populations, Including Dead Ones (Blog)
11. 'You must . . . study for at least part of your time in the USA' for an F-1 Visa (Blog)
Arizona will ask Supreme Court to rule on immigration law
Arizona will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the state's controversial anti-immigration law, Gov. Jan Brewer said Monday. The announcement was made after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected on April 11 Arizona's plea to overturn a district judge's injunction blocking implementation of parts of SB1070.
Among the articles currently suspended is one that would oblige police agencies in Arizona to ask for proof of legal residence in the United States from anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant. Also blocked is the article that obliges all immigrants to carry their immigration documents at all times.
"Arizona will prevail in its fight to protect its citizens," Brewer said Monday. The Republican governor said that a year after she signed SB1070, Arizona continues fighting against crimes related to the violence generated by Mexican drug cartels.
This is a new chapter in the history of a law that divides communities inside and outside the state, between those who want an "iron fist" against illegal immigration and those fighting for the rights of immigrants.
Because Brewer considers that time is of the essence, she decided to take SB1070 to the Supreme Court instead of lodging a second appeal with the 9th Circuit. An intervention by the high court would create a "greater likelihood that legal questions surrounding the law will be resolved quickly so that the law can begin to do its job," she said.
The state of Arizona now has until July 11 to present its official appeal before the nation's highest court. The Supreme Court is not expected to decide whether it will hear the case until late September or early October.
"Our issue is bigger than simply border security. It's about the principle that a state must be able to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens, especially in the absence of sufficient federal assistance. I'm confident that Arizona will emerge victorious from this legal fight," Brewer said.
The governor admitted that it will be a costly legal battle.
She said that up to now her office has received $3.7 million in private donations for the legal defense of SB1070, of which amount approximately half has already been spent.
"For decades, the federal government has neglected its constitutional duty to secure the border. It is because of that negligence that Arizona was forced to take action to protect its citizens via SB1070," the governor said.
Arizona's attorney general, Tom Horne, said the situation on the border is so "urgent" that the state must fix it as soon as possible.
Implementation of SB1070 has spread fear among Arizona's immigrant community, whose members have begun leaving the state to find better opportunities elsewhere.
The enactment of the controversial law also sparked a boycott against the state that experts say has seriously affected the tourism industry and Arizona's image within and without the United States.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment