National Editor Tom Karst The Supreme Court decision on the Arizona immigration law (Arizona v. the U.S.) has produced different reactions across the political spectrum:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., released this statement:
“In overturning much of Arizona’s misguided immigration law, the Supreme Court sent a strong message today that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of Congress, not the individual states. Border protection and immigration enforcement have been and will continue to be the legal preserve of the federal government.
“I remain concerned that the sole remaining provision—the requirement that police check the immigration status of a person they’ve otherwise stopped or arrested—raises serious constitutional concerns that will result in civil rights violations against citizens and immigrants alike. But it is important to note that while the court did not strike down this provision at this time, it made clear that Arizona must be very careful how it enforces this provision or it, too, will be overturned.”
“Washington has failed to fix our broken immigration system. I am hopeful that the court’s decision moves Congress to finally take action in a bipartisan manner to bring about responsible, comprehensive reform.”
TK: On the other hand, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer struck a defiant tone.
"So, today is a day when the key component of our effort to protect the citizens of Arizona – to take up the fight against illegal immigration -- in a balanced and constitutional way -- has UNANIMOUSLY been vindicated by the highest court in the land."
TK: As I see it, the Supreme Court ruling may take away the impulse by states to set up new immigration enforcement mandates for employers, but the High Court's approval of the Ariz. requirement that police check the immigration status of those stopped or arrested may find appeal in other states, as Frank Gasperini suggests. The industry wants to believe Feinstein's call for badly needed bipartisan reform of immigration law. But coming at this hour, with a nation on the verge of a pivotal election, the sentiment is comically incongruous with reality.
The chorus of those seeking transparency in food stamp data is growing louder and more diverse.
I earlier covered the work of Michele Simon and her work for transparency. Today, the conservative-leaning The Washington Times (the Official newspaper of 2012, as they call themselves) just published a story called Top secret: $80b a year for food stamps, but feds won't reveal what's purchased.
The story points out that the USDA not only prohibits sharing data showing what people purchase with $80 billion worth of food stamp benefits, it also refuses to release information on food stamp redemptions at individual stores.
Come on lawmakers and USDA. Let's get food stamp data out in the open or else risk public support.
Fresh Talk hotlinks