Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Arizona to Require Citizenship Proof for State Elections

Illegal Immigration and Arizona, next round.

From MSN:

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 in June to strike down a voter-registration law designed to stop illegal immigrants from casting ballots in the state, which borders Mexico and has been at the heart of the U.S. national battle over immigration.
The law had required would-be voters to show proof of citizenship both when registering to vote and when casting a ballot, but the court ruled that the measure was trumped by federal law.
On Monday, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne spelled out the new policy in an opinion issued in response to a request from Secretary of State Ken Bennett, seeking clarification in light of the top court's ruling.
"Those who registered to vote using the federal form, which does not require evidence of citizenship, should not vote in state elections or sign petitions," Horne, a Republican, concluded in the 16-page opinion.
Related: Southern states are moving to tighten voting rules
But he said the rules outlined in the Arizona voter registration measure, Proposition 200, were still valid for local elections.
"Persons seeking to register to vote must comply with Proposition 200's evidence of citizenship requirement in order to become ... eligible to vote in state and local elections and to sign candidates, initiative, referendum or recall petitions," he added.
It should be noted that illegal immigration is not as tolerated in Mexico, which has, traditionally, had some very harsh penalties for persons found to be in Mexico illegally. Under pressure from the U.S., Mexico has begun to implement changes to their own policies regarding illegal immigration within Mexican borders.

One has to wonder how many "undocumented workers" have been furloughed by the U.S. federal government during the shutdown.

Does the government practice what it preaches in the hiring of  the "undocumented?"

Or is this something that the government, once again, expects for the rest of the country to tolerate and promote while exempting itself?

Sic vis pacem parabellum.


No comments: