Difference between revisions of "Pro-immigration decisions"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
(formatting) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Here is a listing, roughly in priority, of the leading pro-[[immigration]] decisions relied upon by promoters of [[illegal aliens]] against state efforts to rein in the unlawfulness: | Here is a listing, roughly in priority, of the leading pro-[[immigration]] decisions relied upon by promoters of [[illegal aliens]] against state efforts to rein in the unlawfulness: | ||
| − | ''Arizona v. United States'', 567 U.S. 387, 409 (2012), a 5-3 opinion by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] which includes flowery language: | + | *''Arizona v. United States'', 567 U.S. 387, 409 (2012), a 5-3 opinion by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] which includes flowery language: |
| − | :The federal government should have exclusive control over immigration in order to speak “with one voice” to other nations. | + | ::The federal government should have exclusive control over immigration in order to speak “with one voice” to other nations. |
| − | :“Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws.” ''Arizona'', 567 U.S. at 395. | + | ::“Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws.” ''Arizona'', 567 U.S. at 395. |
| − | :Even “[p]erceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.” ''Id.'' | + | ::Even “[p]erceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.” ''Id.'' |
| − | ''Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi'', 539 U.S. 396, 424 (2003). | + | *''Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi'', 539 U.S. 396, 424 (2003). |
| − | ''Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council'', 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000). | + | *''Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council'', 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000). |
[[category:immigration]] | [[category:immigration]] | ||
Revision as of 03:20, August 10, 2021
Here is a listing, roughly in priority, of the leading pro-immigration decisions relied upon by promoters of illegal aliens against state efforts to rein in the unlawfulness:
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 409 (2012), a 5-3 opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy which includes flowery language:
- The federal government should have exclusive control over immigration in order to speak “with one voice” to other nations.
- “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 395.
- Even “[p]erceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.” Id.
- Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 424 (2003).
- Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000).