taxpayer dollars in my view. there were several other lawsuit pending. the government didn't have to file a suit too. one part upheld is the part that deals with the so-called sanctuary cities. so a citizen of arizona would be able to attempt to get cities to enforce the law, whatever it might be. but that's a small consolation given the bulk of the law was declared unconstitutional. what i think it means is, if the state of arizona let's say were to pass a law that says you can't get state welfare benefits, if you're not an american citizen and therefore, some department in arizona had to check the immigration status of people, that could be declared unconstitutional as federally preempted. i don't think that argument would hold. so i don't understand how the judge's ruling about adding a burden to the federal government can be the basis for undoing the statute on preemption grounds.
Related Keywords
Government , Arizona , Citizen , Part , Sanctuary Cities , Deals , Suit , Didn T , View , Taxpayer , Lawsuit , One , Law , Estate , Cities , Consolation , Bulk , Say , Arizona Let , People , Us , Immigration Status , Department , State Welfare Benefits , Judge , Ruling , Statute , Burden , Basis , Preemption Grounds , Argument ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.