The quotation for today, across the jump, aims our attention at what are the true goals of Arizona's immigration law.
The editorial, from which the above coments were excerpted, discusses the true objective and effect of Arizona's immigration law (aka Arizona SB 1070).
Paraphrasing Martin Niemöller: First they came for the Hispanics and we did nothing. Then they came for the gays and we did nothing. Then they came for me ....
To read the complete editorial and what the editors mean by a "yellow flag in the history of state and federal relations," click on the link in the enclosed citation.
Arizona and Interposition. Editorial. The New York Times 24 April, 2012: online edition.
An important verb appears on page 14 of the government’s brief in Arizona v. the United States, the case about four provisions of that state’s immigration law that will be argued on Wednesday in the Supreme Court. The government says Arizona is trying to “interpose” its own judgments on “national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, humanitarian considerations and the rights of law-abiding citizens and aliens.” It says the Constitution and Congress, in the Immigration and Nationality Act, give the executive branch authority to handle those issues.
The word “interpose” is a yellow flag in the history of state and federal relations.
The New York Times
The editorial, from which the above coments were excerpted, discusses the true objective and effect of Arizona's immigration law (aka Arizona SB 1070).
Paraphrasing Martin Niemöller: First they came for the Hispanics and we did nothing. Then they came for the gays and we did nothing. Then they came for me ....
To read the complete editorial and what the editors mean by a "yellow flag in the history of state and federal relations," click on the link in the enclosed citation.
Arizona and Interposition. Editorial. The New York Times 24 April, 2012: online edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment