tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332474233028702074.post8344624389709376280..comments2024-01-15T04:00:10.334-08:00Comments on YLH & Co, Advocates and Solicitors: SB 1070 : Arizona's controversial immigration lawYLH&Cohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05164241602850192499noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332474233028702074.post-8140419049693567392012-04-28T17:59:08.609-07:002012-04-28T17:59:08.609-07:00Yasser, from over where you are it may look like a...Yasser, from over where you are it may look like an “interesting” case whose outcome could go either way. However, actually the SB 1070 was drafted very cleverly by a couple of lawyers (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-of-trial-for-proponents-of-self-deportation/2012/04/24/gIQAe6lheT_print.html). It conducts just enough tweaking (and no more) of the Federal immigration laws to provide cover to the conservative and borderline conservative justices of the Supreme Court if they wish to change the balance of Federal/state roles in matters of immigration. The way it appears at this time, those folks are apparently ready to do just that. The necessary legalese can always be developed to make whatever case one wishes to make (like the late Johnny Cochran observed, in reality, lady justice is neither blind nor color-blind). Here is how I see things moving:<br />(1) With a majority (probably with a significant majority) the Court will allow some of the key provisions of SB 1070 to go into effect.<br />(2) This will embolden the copycat states to develop similar language – leading to a patchwork of immigration laws and rights of aliens differing by states.<br />(3) This will lead to situations of abuse, some outrageous headline events, general public outcry, etc.<br />(4) With all the outcry, eventually Federal laws will be drafted which will include similar code nationally and would preempt some of the states’ codes. The end result will be that (like the mullahs in Pakistan) many conservatives in Arizona and elsewhere will get most of what they want not because they have the constitution on their side – but because they have overwhelming public support for their positions, irrespective of any hardships that may result for those who are affected by any unfairness which may exist. Sad, but not much one can do about it. :(<br /><br />(Posted by BJK)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com