You seem sure of yourself that the Supreme Court will overturn Arizona's law. Care to make a wager on that?
Here's how: What Obama needs most on this immigration ruling is a loss.
In 2008, Obama won with the help of 67% of Latinos. According to a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, Obama leads Romney among Latinos by 69% to 22%. This is particularly important in Florida, which has a large Latino vote and could be the critical state in a close election. The gravitational pull of Florida is immense.
Many political experts identify Florida (again) as the state that would likely dictate the outcome, given its high number of electoral votes. Latinos also play a big role in other large states, from Texas to California to Arizona. Obama knows that Romney will probably need to get about 40% of Latino voters to win in 2012.
This brings us back to immigration. The court could give Obama a galvanizing issue shortly before the election. Polls of Latinos show that 85% favor illegal immigrants being allowed to gain legal status and that a majority oppose current enforcement as too strict. Almost half find the very term "illegal immigrant" offensive. So, ironically, Obama's support among Latinos is likely to be greater if the president loses before the court.
Thus the conservatives on the court could again decide the presidential election, but this time it would be a Democrat who benefits from their ruling.
http://www.silobreaker.com/column-courting-the-immigration-vote-5_2265644982213804151
It would be a slap in the face for Obama if he loses the case, not a political gain, as you claim.
Obama also promised the Hispanic population that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation during his first year in office, he not only didn't pass any legislation to that effect, he never proposed any such legislation in the first place. Suffice to say, he didn't deliver on this promise. Instead, he is suing states over immigration enforcement laws and voter ID laws. Most Americans believe that he is on the wrong side of both of those issues.
Now he is saying that if he is re-elected, he will pass comprehensive immigration reform. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Obama's entire reelection strategy is to be a magnet for all the angry groups in the country. The fact that he is the incumbent and has accomplished nohting is irrelevent to the Occupy types.
Obama also promised the Hispanic population that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation during his first year in office, he not only didn't pass any legislation to that effect, he never proposed any such legislation in the first place. Suffice to say, he didn't deliver on this promise. Instead, he is suing states over immigration enforcement laws and voter ID laws. Most Americans believe that he is on the wrong side of both of those issues.
Now he is saying that if he is re-elected, he will pass comprehensive immigration reform. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
& I just read that Romney rejected Marco Rubio's plan for a "GOP dream act".
Is it any wonder that Latinos favor Obama over Romney by 40 % ? ( 63%-23 )
Hell, Mccain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in '08 & he STILL lost.
The angry White Christian party stikes again---LOL !
-- Modified on 4/24/2012 7:48:44 PM
is great as long as they vote for dummycrappers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhrb2c817k&feature=related
you really don't care what Obama does to this country as long as he wins.
Let's just open the flood gates and let all of South America in?
"""This brings us back to immigration. The court could give Obama a galvanizing issue shortly before the election. Polls of Latinos show that 85% favor illegal immigrants being allowed to gain legal status and that a majority oppose current enforcement as too strict. Almost half find the very term "illegal immigrant" offensive. So, ironically, Obama's support among Latinos is likely to be greater if the president loses before the court.""
The majority of Americans support the immigration law, ad the factbthe he fed is suing about it will not sit well. The undecided voters he got in 2008, he will lose in 2012 and his issue will be one of the reasons why.
recent statistics to prove your point?
Even looks like the support is rising...
The Supreme Court is not influenced by public opinion .
Conservative justices included, I don't see any of them voting to uphold
the law , except possibly the quiet one that sometimes is the lone dissenter .
The law as written is obsessively oppressive , not in keeping with freedoms
all Americans should be able to share .
I'm not saying we don't need better immigration laws , I'm saying we don't need
immigration laws that profile and question honest citizens in public .
We are not Germany .
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/germany/120327/german-police-id-checks-skin-color-koblenz-court
When the law is overturned , you should expect a drastic change in
polling numbers among Hispanics and Romney .
I'm not frightened of making predictions, especially so since I am usually correct .
-- Modified on 4/25/2012 12:46:29 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-182.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/justice/scotus-arizona-law/index.html
Quote :
Even before the solicitor general began speaking midway through the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts framed the debate away from what has become a major complaint about the law: that it would target mostly Hispanic people for scrutiny and detention.
"I'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about," Roberts said. "No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?" Verrilli readily agreed.
Later the chief justice raised more serious concerns. When enforcing other law, "the person is already stopped for some other reason. He's stopped for going 60 in a 20 (mph zone). He's stopped for drunk driving. So that decision to stop the individual has nothing to do with immigration law at all. All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you," Roberts said to Verrilli. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not."
Justice Anthony Kennedy echoed the thought, suggesting the federal government is not doing enough on illegal immigration, which might give states discretion to intervene. Suppose, he offered, "the state of Arizona has a massive emergency with social disruption, economic disruption, residents leaving the state because of a flood of immigrants. Let's just assume those two things. Does that give the state of Arizona any powers or authority or legitimate concerns that any other state wouldn't have?"
You seem sure of yourself that the Supreme Court will overturn Arizona's law. Care to make a wager on that?