Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim

[OmaHusker]

The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

Mr. Verrilli said Arizona’s goal is to try to force the federal government to change its priorities, but he said those policies are designed at the national level in order to balance concerns over available resources and international relations.

“What [Arizona is] going to do is engage effectively in mass incarceration,” he said. “It poses a very serious risk of raising serious foreign relations problems.”

Washington Times

[Huskers57]

which means they'll more than likely support SB1070 and other immigration laws. Good!

[Huskers57]

one of the justices had this statement-not word for word but went something like this:

If a state is sovereign, doesn't it have the right to protect its' borders also?

[redmachine]

The argument that this law affects foreign relations is laughable, IMO.

How could Mexico (for example) possibly be upset that we stop able-bodied Mexicans from leaving Mexico?

[ChitownHusker]

The argument that this law affects foreign relations is laughable, IMO.

How could Mexico (for example) possibly be upset that we stop able-bodied Mexicans from leaving Mexico?

I hadn't heard that argument. The preemption argument with respect to some aspects of the law is pretty solid. I think the court will likely invalidate a couple parts of the law on that ground, but keep it largely intact.

[OmaHusker]

The argument that this law affects foreign relations is laughable, IMO.

How could Mexico (for example) possibly be upset that we stop able-bodied Mexicans from leaving Mexico?

I presume there is large influx of US $ into the Mexican economy from illegals sending money home.