[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: EDITORIAL: The administration's immigration radicalism EDITORIAL: The administration's immigration radicalism Solicitor general asks Supreme Court to rewrite the law By THE WASHINGTON TIMES 9:38 p.m., Wednesday, June 2, 2010 The Obama administration wants to use the Supreme Court to enact an immigration agenda so radical that even the Democratic majority in Congress doesn't want to touch it. In a brief to the Supreme Court last Friday, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that one type of unlawful conduct must never be considered when denying business and professional licenses. The special exemption is for crimes involving those who illegally sneak over the border. States traditionally have had the power to limit the ability of hoodlums to deal with consumers from a position of responsibility. Mandatory background checks show arrests, convictions and prison records for anyone applying for permission to run a business or to work as a professional, whether that be as a plumber or veterinarian. It is up to individual licensing boards to determine which type of crimes merit disqualification and when someone ought to be given a second chance. Until now. The administration is challenging a 2007 Arizona law that allowed state boards to consider immigration status when granting or revoking business and professional licenses. This common-sense, flexible statute was signed into law by none other than Janet Napolitano, the current secretary of Homeland Security. While serving as the Grand Canyon state's governor, Ms. Napolitano defended the law against several lawsuits, and even the left-leaning 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to accept the challenges mounted by illegal-alien rights groups. The Obama administration clearly intends to set a precedent that would prohibit states from playing any role in immigration matters. Mr. Katyal argued that the Arizona law disrupts "a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country." The administration further argues that, "There is no reason to believe that Congress intended a result that would subvert the purpose and operation of its general prohibition on state sanctions." If Congress really wanted to limit states from playing any role in immigration matters, it could easily do so. With large majorities in both the House and Senate, Democrats can enact virtually anything that they want on a straight party-line vote. There is nothing currently on the books to suggest that the states can't include immigration crimes in their licensing decisions, just as they would consider other federal misdeeds such as counterfeiting or kidnapping. Important matters of public policy should be set by representatives in Congress who are accountable to the people. It's a sign of just how radical the administration immigration plan is that it seeks to use the courts to evade that accountability
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|