---- LibertyNEWS POLL: Are you glad Paul Ryan's Obamacare 2.0 failed? Click here to vote and see instant results! ----
Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is optimistic about the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. The law allows for law enforcement to check the status of stopped individuals to see if they are in the country legally.
On Fox New’s “On the Record with Greta VanSusteren,” Brewer remarked that she is of the opinion that the Supreme Court justices now realize that the Arizona law “was not about racial profiling, or bigotry, or ethnic claims.” Brewer elaborated, saying: “It was about the rule of law. And, it was so clear. It was just…It’s what we’ve been saying, our message to everyone. It was great.”
Even so, Brewer remains positive and provided the following commentary:
“I think a lot of it is old fashioned politics, trying to get a vote.”“I think there’s been a lot of pandering done by the opposition, trying to make it racial, and looking for Latino votes, and using scare tactics, if you will, and building this up to something that it never was meant to be. So much misinformation has been presented from all levels of government, all the way up to the president, I am fearful to say.”
Nevertheless, should Arizona be victorious in the Supreme Court’s ruling, Democrats, led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), are already plotting out a way to strip states of the authority to enact their own immigration rules. Schumer’s scheme would designate federal primacy in immigration by occluding states from taking any action towards immigration. This would also overturn last year’s Supreme Court ruling which upheld an Arizona law that requires businesses to verify their employees’ legal status.
Schumer, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that he believes “it is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy.”
Perhaps if the federal government would pursue suitable immigration reform, the states wouldn’t have to draft their own laws.
VanSusteren: But I — but explain that to me because on July 1st, 2010, the president gave a speech on immigration and illegal immigration up at American University. I went up and I sat through the speech.
At the time, he had the House and he had the Senate, both Democrats. And then nothing.Why was nothing done? Because if — you know, if what the Democrats wanted to achieve — I mean, that’s something — that was the perfect point to do it, on the heels of a speech and while they still controlled both houses.McCain:You know, I don’t know. You’d have to ask him. But I’ll tell you an experience I had. After the terrible shooting that took place in Tucson and Representative Giffords was wounded severely, as you know, I wrote a piece in The Washington Post thanking the president because he came to Tucson and talked about how — you know, it was a very excellent speech and it was — helped with the healing.
And so I was invited over to the White House. I went to the White House. I sat down with the president. We primarily discussed two issues. One was the issue of a line-item veto. The other was about immigration.
And I said, We stand ready to work with you on an immigration bill. He said, You’ll be hearing from us. Still waiting for the phone to ring.