Undocumented on Edge Before U.S. Supreme Court Ruling (La Jornada, Mexico)

Will the U.S. Supreme Court rule according to its tendency to favor corporate America, or will it strike down recent state law that cracks down on undocumented immigrants in the United States – which would undercut the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Columnist Arturo Balderas Rodríguez of Mexico’s La Jornada warns that the undocumented can’t count on the Court to protect their ‘fundamental rights.’

For La Jornada, Arturo Balderas Rodríguez writes in part:

If the Supreme Court proves consistent with its tendency of protecting corporate interests, it would be logical for it to override the anti-immigration laws that have been passed in several states, and which been frozen by several district courts that have deemed them unconstitutional. These laws pose a hindrance to corporations that require migrant labor, including immigrants without papers. You will recall that the Chamber of Commerce, which represents major corporations in the country, has emphasized the need to legalize undocumented immigrants.

But neither can we rule out the possibility that 19th century conservatism will prevail in the Supreme Court, which could find reason to endorse the legality of these laws.

Once again, the fate of undocumented immigrants will depend on considerations that go beyond the intrinsic need for recognizing their fundamental rights, one of them being the right to walking the streets freely without fear of being jailed or deported on the basis of their appearance.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

4 Responses to “Undocumented on Edge Before U.S. Supreme Court Ruling (La Jornada, Mexico)”

1. DLS says:

   August 2, 2011 at 6:02 pm

   [shudder] How those words “right” and “rights” get so misused…

   It is interesting here at home how the Justice Department has chosen one of the states that passed an immigration-control law to try to overturn.

   To put it in terms we relate to here in Alabama, you can only have one quarterback in a football game. In immigration, the federal government is the quarterback.

   (So why does the quarterback stay on the sideline and express a desire to let the opposition have its way with the team, even to find this desirable?)

   Today’s action makes clear that setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility that cannot be addressed through a patchwork of state immigration laws,” Holder said. “The department is committed to evaluating each state immigration law and making decisions based on the facts and the law. To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit, as we did in Arizona.

   (That “patchwork” argument is a staple of those wanting the feds to replace the state and local governments and do everything. And more to the point here, why is there no expressed intent of the federal government actually to enforce federal immigration law?)

   ttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60469.html#ixzz1TuZG8g7E
2. Allen says:

   August 2, 2011 at 7:01 pm

   DLS-

   Do you honestly believe that the States should replace the U.S. Immigration and Customs? So you would actually allow some businesses to take in as many illegals as they want while other states businesses reject as many as they want? That Arizona could deport illegals to New Mexico, were labor is lacking, rather than Mexico, or, nation of origin?

   I agree that there are far to many illegal aliens and they should be removed from this country, but the problem lies with those whom hire them, not the poor people that simply seek a better life.
3. superdestroyer says:

   August 3, 2011 at 6:48 am

   Allen,

   The federal government’s refusal to enforce current immigration laws imposes massive costs on the states to include increased spending of healthcare, education, crime, and infrastructure.

   The state’s should not be forced to fund the federal government negligence. In addition, tax payers should not have to fund a policy that few of them support.

   If the federal government is going to refuse to enforce existing laws, then citizen and state lawsuits should be allowed to force the federal government to follow the law.

   If the administrators of DHS, ICE, and CBP were facing individual lawsuits, they would be more than happy to enforce the law and control the borders.
4. zippee says:

   August 3, 2011 at 8:29 am

   “…right to walking the streets freely without fear of being jailed or deported on the basis of their appearance.”

   Seriously? They’re here illegally.

   LEGAL citizens of the United States have rights. Illegals, not so much.

   If they “live in constant fear”, such fear is and should be because they’re breaking the law.