We're currently tied with a score of Home 7; Visitors 7, and will resume the match next summer in the Supreme Court. It's been a touchy subject along the border and throughout the country. Would it be as big of an issue if our visitors were paying their share? When Uncle Sam calls, he would like an answer on the other end. "Hola?"
Arizona gained national attention in 2010 by cracking down on immigration in Latino communities. Sheriff Joe and his posse began routine traffic stops asking for "papers." He hates the idea of illegal's getting a free ride home, and would prefer they be treated like any other hardened Arizona criminal. This means they will be dressed in pink and put to work in a chain gang. In a just society, everybody deserves the right to become part of chain gang. One could certainly argue that an illegal was paying his dues through the chain gang volunteer work program.
The Obama administration argues that immigration is a federal matter. They also argue that Arizona's approach is unconstitutional. This may be in reference to the check points set up where the officer shines his flashlight about the vehicle and says, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" Since the basis for the question may have derived from the suspect's skin color, the administration insists it's an infringement on personal rights. As the Supreme Court hearing has been set up with a date close to the 2012 presidential run, Obama may want to consider arguing voting rights for illegal immigrants.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona's case on immigration, it had a lot on its' plate. The court has more pressing issues, such as one regarding a Texas case on election maps. There are some who believe these new maps could encourage Hispanic voters resulting in an increase of Democrat control. They take it one day at a time, allowing for the most controversial cases to be decided at a more appropriate time.
Most paying customers of this three ring circus expect that the home team will not be paying a higher price than the visitors. The Justices will decide the outcome of the Arizona case at approximately the same time as they will hear the ObamaCare debate that some consider unconstitutional. When considering the similarities in the two cases, it's a bit like a stroll through the house of mirrors.
Arizona gained national attention in 2010 by cracking down on immigration in Latino communities. Sheriff Joe and his posse began routine traffic stops asking for "papers." He hates the idea of illegal's getting a free ride home, and would prefer they be treated like any other hardened Arizona criminal. This means they will be dressed in pink and put to work in a chain gang. In a just society, everybody deserves the right to become part of chain gang. One could certainly argue that an illegal was paying his dues through the chain gang volunteer work program.
The Obama administration argues that immigration is a federal matter. They also argue that Arizona's approach is unconstitutional. This may be in reference to the check points set up where the officer shines his flashlight about the vehicle and says, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" Since the basis for the question may have derived from the suspect's skin color, the administration insists it's an infringement on personal rights. As the Supreme Court hearing has been set up with a date close to the 2012 presidential run, Obama may want to consider arguing voting rights for illegal immigrants.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona's case on immigration, it had a lot on its' plate. The court has more pressing issues, such as one regarding a Texas case on election maps. There are some who believe these new maps could encourage Hispanic voters resulting in an increase of Democrat control. They take it one day at a time, allowing for the most controversial cases to be decided at a more appropriate time.
Most paying customers of this three ring circus expect that the home team will not be paying a higher price than the visitors. The Justices will decide the outcome of the Arizona case at approximately the same time as they will hear the ObamaCare debate that some consider unconstitutional. When considering the similarities in the two cases, it's a bit like a stroll through the house of mirrors.
