At first blush, the Obama administration?s decision to launch a legal crusade against Arizona and two other states that have passed laws cracking down on illegal immigrants seems like a sure political loser ? the three Justice Department lawsuits fly squarely in the face of public support for the new laws and play into a familiar conservative narrative about an overbearing and intrusive federal government.
?It can?t help,? former Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) said of the likely political impact on President Barack Obama?s reelection chances and those of other Democrats facing voters next fall. ?It just seems like an issue that?s tailor made to being used by the the other party to their advantage.?
Continue ReadingBut there also is a potential political upside to a immigration-related legal showdown that may ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court: It could give a major boost to Obama?s urgent effort to shore up his support among Latinos in advance of 2012.
If the Supreme Court does weigh in on the issue this term ? and it?s expected to decide in the next several weeks ? the legal battle would come to a head, conveniently, just as Obama is trying to make amends for what many Latinos regard as a less-than-aggressive drive to pass immigration reform legislation.
?My sense is [the Obama camp has] actually thought about this a lot,? said Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. ?You can see an organized campaign the last three months of reaching out to the Latino electorate and a plan to do ?everything we can? to improve things on immigration. ? Going to the Supreme Court is going to be significant to try to communicate: ?We?ll go to the wall on this.??
Still, the Justice Department, citing legal reasons, has urged the court not to become involved ? and it?s just as possible in the view of many Republicans that the suits will end up having damaging political consequences for Obama. The court?s decision to take up Obama?s health care reform legislation next spring will put concerns about federal government overreach front and center and a fight over federal efforts to limit a state?s authority to address illegal immigration could stoke that fire.
?You really play into the story of big government and anti-federal government sentiment,? said Dowell Myers, a University of Southern California demographer who studies immigration-related trends. ?It would be wise if the administration couples its efforts to protect rights and federal control some kind of statement of responsibility? for federal failures to control illegal immigration and reimburse states for immigration-related costs, he said.
The Justice Department?s legal efforts began last year with a challenge to Arizona?s SB 1070 and expanded more recently to lawsuits against Alabama and ? on Halloween ? South Carolina. Since SB 1070 was signed in June, polls have consistently shown a majority ? often about two-thirds of the public ? favoring such anti-illegal immigration legislation.
Three Republican senators, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana, have introduced a bill to cut off funding for the pending suits and block any future suits involving specific immigration-related laws in Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah. A similar amendment failed on a 43-55 vote last year, but won the support of four Senate Democrats: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
?I?ve been stunned at how popular the Arizona law is even in polling in other states,? said Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster who surveys for the group Resurgent Republic.
steelers baltimore ravens ravens namibia namibia hell on wheels hell on wheels
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.