Split decision on immigration law a victory for Obama

Editorials

Discussion

COMMENTING ON STORIES:

Welcome to our story comments feature. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including the unpopular ones. We only ask that you keep your conversations clean, civil and on the topic of the story you are commenting on.

Coinciding with our websites redesign, we launched our new story comments feature through Disqus.

Disqus gives users the ability to log into our story comments feature so that they may be able to track their conversations, receive emails when their comments get a reply or to even have your comments update onto your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

For the time being, our story comments feature will continue to have the ability to post comments anonymously. We reserve the right to require registration in the future using your name and verified email address.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified at the newspaper’s discretion for a number of different reasons. Please follow our Online Rules of Conduct at all times.

RULES OF CONDUCT:

We reserve the right to remove comments that are unacceptable, to wit:

1. False and inacurate statements.
2. Personal attacks. Explicit name-calling.
3. Harassing, harmful, vulgar, obscene and defamatory language.
4. Threatening statements or statements that suggest violence.
5. Hate speech of any kind.
6. Intolerant comments on religion, race, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities.
7. Accusations of criminal activity.
8. Content that is harmful to children and minors in any way.
9. References to any type of sexual activity and other private matters.
10. Random and inflammatory statements that are off topic.
11. Advertising of any kind.
12. Typing in all caps.

WE ENCOURAGE REASONABLE AND COURTEOUS COMMENTS THAT:

1. Create conversation on issues of interest and concern to fellow readers and local community members.
2. Express opinions and contrarian views.
3. Stimulate debate with respectful language.
4. Stay within the boundaries of these rules.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE ACCESS FOR:

1. Violating any of these Online Rules of Conduct.
2. Deliberately disrupting discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or spam.
3. Misrepresentation of identity or impersonating another user.

WE WELCOME:

1. Flagging violations of these rules that you observe to our attention.

MONITORING:

We monitor comments regularly Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Approval of comments outside of this time (including weekends) will be sporadic.

comments powered by Disqus

June 27, 2012

Split decision on immigration law a victory for Obama

Anonymous Daily Star The Daily Star Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:37 PM EDT

If the Supreme Court decision announced Monday involving Arizona's immigration law had been a boxing match, the result would have been a split decision in favor of the federal government and its right to deal with illegal immigration.

But politically, the 5-3 ruling (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had served as solicitor general in the current administration) was a knockdown by President Barack Obama, if not a knockout blow to Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations.

Common wisdom from both parties dictates that a Republican candidate for president needs to garner 40 percent of the fast-growing Latino vote to win the White House.

Even before the ruling Monday, Romney was polling at only 25 percent, mostly because of his harsh rhetoric during the GOP primaries and vow to veto any "Dream Act" legislation that could lead to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

While Obama vehemently opposed Arizona's intrusion on federal responsibility, Romney had called the state's laws a model for the country. On Monday, the Supreme Court did the former Massachusetts governor no favors.

It struck down provisions that established state crimes for illegal immigrants not to have a registration card or to look for or hold a job and would allow the police to arrest without a warrant anyone they suspected of being undocumented.

But the Court left intact the state's onerous "show your papers provision" that allows police to check people's immigration status if they are suspected of a crime.

This has infuriated many Latino activists, who rightly assume there will be selective enforcement, and will not help Romney's campaign. It also didn't help for Romney to refuse to speak to reporters and then wait several hours Monday before finally issuing this rather tepid response.

"I believe that each state has the duty -- and the right -- to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities," Romney said in a statement.

In contrast, Obama said in a statement: "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law-enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes."

While the Court has spoken, albeit with mixes signals, any solution will have to come from Congress ... but don't hold your breath.

"I would guess (Congress) won't touch this with a 10-foot pole until after they come back after the election," Charles H. Kuck, managing partner at Kuck Immigration Partners, told CNN.

Ultimately then, it would seem, this case will wind up in the court of public opinion.