Democrats Plan to Force Vote on Arizona Immigration Law If It’s Upheld by Court

Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, April 23, 2012

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.


Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere.

The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country.


A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  •  Except as this article admits, even the Democrats pushing this know it won’t succeed.  It’s all an election year tactic to pander to Hispanics.

    Which leads me to this rhetorical question:  How bad is it for Obama?  If prospects for his re-election were as good as the media pretend, I don’t think these Democrats would be turning this kind of trick, because they have to know that it would turn off far more many white people than Hispanics it would turn on. 

  • Hunter Morrow

    150 years ago Democrats were mocking Lincoln, drawing him as a monkey and saying Republicans were the “Anti-White Party of Negro Lovers.”

    If that doesn’t show you the folly of party democracy, what will?

    “Democracy is beautiful in theory, but fallacy in practice. America does not know this yet, yet it will know it soon enough.”-Benito Mussolini.

    When a White taxpaying vote counts the same as a tax leeching vote from Demontravious and Jose the system is done.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
    exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse
    from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes
    for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
    with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal
    policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the
    world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”-Alexis de Tocqueville

  • holyflower

    This Chuck Schumer-Democrat spectacle is lesson for all those who put any faith in the posts of those who say there is no difference between the two political parties.  Perhaps late columnist Sam Francis defined the difference better than anyone:

    “We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. “

  • diversity_is_a_hate_crime

    Watching the news shows us our new permanent normal: Diversity Chaos.

    The pressures that gave us the Arizona immigration push back will not go away. It all gets worse from here. If Whites feel that they have no recourse at all to protect their states, then they will take the recourse themselves.

    The race politics will keep getting worse. Somebody is going to just say no when confronted with a Diversity Enrichment, and solve the problem on the spot, earning a George Zimmerman Community Service Award.

    Sharpton and the NBP will go into attack mode, and given the overall mood in the country, and the impossibility of Whites accepting another Kerner Report that blames us for Diversity violence, we then enter the permanent hot phase of the race war.

    The Democrats will become the minority party, and the GOP will try to catch up with them.

    The Tea Party will split into anti-racist and race realist camps, making it impotent as a force to reform the GOP.

    White Humanity will become minoritized much faster than we see in MSM reports.

    The Internet will shut down AmRen style free speech.

    Muslims will gain political power and gain victories in the judiciary. Sheriffs who stand in the way will be arrested and disappear.

    We will become a battle-nation, and China just laughs and waits. They have a billion soldiers, while we must have women and gays promoted to Seal Teams and Generalships.

  • IstvanIN

    1) Up Chuck Shumer isn’t an American. Never was.  He has an escape route when the poop hits the fan.
    2) Latinos are not American’s, simply invaders.

    The real question is: where do we put the capital of Vichy America?

    • The__Bobster

      It wouldn’t surprise me if “The Vulture” has dual citizenship.

  • SintiriNikos

    The SCOTUS has almost complete power over the states, and yet the states have no reciprocal power over the court. When the Founding Fathers devised the three Branches of the federal government, it was for the purpose of checks and balances. Instead now the system has been perverted and power usurped in a way that renders the States totally at the mercy of the federal bodies. The Republic is dead. And the Constitution, or what the liberals call a “living document”, is dead; its first coffin nail when Lincoln aggressed the South and the second and final nails respectively, with the New Deal and Great Society

    • holyflower

      “It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” [Thomas Jefferson, August 18, 1821 letter to Charles Hammond]

  • IKantunderstand

    I don’t know all that much about the Constitution, but I swear this sounds like a State’s right issue. If the Feds are not doing what they are supposed to do on the border, and in fact are engaging  in illegal actions, we have some serious problems. The first thing we need to do is impeach eric holder. OOPs , did I forget to capitalize his name?  Yikes , how disrepectful..

    • SintiriNikos

      The powers of the federal government should be few and defined. Those of the states, many and indefinite. What is enumerated in the Constitution are the powers given to the government BY THE PEOPLE whose rights were given to them by God, or Nature, or Nature’s God. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not exhaustive.

      As you say, if the feds do not protect the integrity of the borders and the sovereignty of the nation, the states hage the wherewithal to do the job themselves. The one fundamental role of government is border security, and they fail at that because they’re too busy feeding and clothing and housing the people. I piss on the graves of FDR and LBJ. As odious as Obongo is, the three worst Presidents in history were Lincoln and the aforementioned tyrants of the 20th century. What they did may never be undone

  • JackKrak

    Arizona’s immigration law is commonsensical and reflects the will of the voters.

    Of course the Democrats are against it.

  • mobilebay

    Instead of hiding behind platitudes and pretending the welfare of illegals is their main goal, why don’t Democrats and the Repbulicans who are open border advocates tell the truth? I’d rather they come out and say, “we want our border open because Latinos will then vote for us for bringing their countrymen in, and we also get paid off by businesses who want cheap, illegal labor. But why ruin their images by telling the truth?

  • MissBonnie123

    I hope that the Supreme Court upholds the Arizona immigration law even if this leads to protests and riots. I know that the Mexicans claim that the southwest and California are theirs and they don’t want anything to stop their movement towards attaining these parts of the US.

    The US government betrayed us Americans a long time ago and Charles Schumer falls into the category of those that betrayed us.

    •  Oral arguments were this morning, and it seems like most if not all of SB 1070 will stand.

      Therefore, there is now a full court press on the part of the media to blame what will probably be double defeats for Obama at SCOTUS for both ObamaCare and SB 1070 on Solicitor General Robert Verrilli’s “incompetence” and “choking.”

      What are they handing out?  I’m sure Verrilli is a fine lawyer.  But not even Perry Mason could defend an utterly indefensible flank.