Friday, July 23, 2010

And we care because...

From the why do we care department:

LA Times 7-22-2010:

If approved (Tani) Cantil-Sakauye would be the state's first Asian-American chief justice and would give women a majority on the court for the first time.

Wow. This is really significant. Well, not really. In fact, not at all.

Moving on, I believe the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. There are a number of reasons, which I spell out here in my recent letter to the local paper:

The controversial Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. Contrary to the claims of its defenders, it does not simply mirror federal law.

As the nonpartisan site points out (, section 5A of the law makes it illegal for a driver to stop and attempt to hire or to hire and pick up passengers, if that action impedes traffic; for a person to get into someone's vehicle in order to be hired; or for an illegal alien to apply for work or solicit work publicly in the state. None of these restrictions (and a few others Arizona added) are part of federal immigration law.

Immigration law has always been a power assigned to the federal government by the Constitution — see Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The states have no legal right to establish their own immigration policies. With a number of other states considering making their own immigration laws, the federal government's lawsuit is absolutely justified.

I think it is a dangerous trend for states to start making their immigration laws. Do we really want 50 different immigration laws in America? (This isn't hypothetical; 21 states are planning to follow Arizona's lead).

No comments: