Quotes of the day

While the Supreme Court’s mixed decision on Monday on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law gave a big political boost to officials there who supported it, the ruling does not seem likely to unleash a new wave of legislation by other states to crack down on illegal immigration…

The court also allowed, and even invited, lawsuits against Arizona’s law that are based squarely on civil rights claims that it would lead to racial profiling against Latinos and other immigrants — issues that did not arise directly in the current case. Many civil rights groups, predicting that the police provision of the law would rapidly lead to discriminatory actions by officers once it takes effect, said on Monday that they were ready for that fight.

“If state governments enact new immigration bills, we say bring it on, we will see them in court,” said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. His organization has participated with other rights groups in a separate lawsuit against Arizona over the law, known as S.B. 1070, and against immigration enforcement laws in other states.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called it “a victory for the rule of law.” But for many police chiefs, Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070, the state’s immigration law, looks like a big headache…

With officers across Arizona forced to walk a tightrope of legal complexity, cash-strapped municipalities also worry they could soon be defending a flurry of lawsuits by the federal government, civil rights activists and irate motorists — distracting police from their main goal of fighting crime.

“We absolutely expect lawsuits on both sides of this issue,” said Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor. “This will result in our officers being tied up in court rather than working on the streets to reduce crime.”

The provision requires police to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of people they stop, even for an offense such as jay walking, if they suspect that they are an illegal immigrant.

But for Estrada, in Santa Cruz County where more than 80 percent of the population is Latino and where many speak Spanish at home, requiring deputies to try to determine the status of those they arrest and suspect are undocumented presents challenges.

“If you are going to guide yourself by the color and the language, you’re going to be racially profiling, so you are going to have to avoid that,” he said…

Smythe said he was concerned that if “the litigation arena got bad enough for any given city you could almost bankrupt the city in some kind of ridiculous legal battle.”

The Justice Department has set up a hotline for the public to report potential civil rights concerns regarding the Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons.

The hotline phone number is 1-855-353-1010. The email is: SB1070(at)usdoj.gov.

The Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to cooperate with Arizona’s court-tested crackdown on illegal immigration has field agents fuming, FoxNews.com has learned…

The agent who talked to FoxNews.com said his colleagues are as outraged as he is and that federal policy makes it impossible to catch illegal immigrants who are criminals, unless they are caught in the act.

“The biggest problem with their catch-and-release method is that ICE does not have an effective process for identifying detainees,” he said. Most detainees do not carry identification on them and they voluntarily provide their name.

“This leads to a larger problem. … We already know that there are difficulties with confirming identities of detainees, so how can ICE be sure that they are not putting a criminal back on the street?”

The past two weeks have offered Mitt Romney numerous opportunities to clarify his stance on immigration — and every time the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has taken a pass…

“I think the common thread on his immigration responses since the primary has been that he is talking in politicalspeak, which means he has perfected the art of saying something without saying anything,” said Ana Novarro, a Republican strategist who served as co-chairwoman of Sen. John McCain’s National Hispanic Advisory Council during his 2008 presidential campaign.

“I think Mitt Romney can tap dance his way around the immigration issue until November, but he will pay a price with it. Not only with Latinos, but with other voters. Trepidation, ambiguity and equivocation are not qualities that the American people look for in a president,” she said.

Via Think Progress.

“This is now a lawless administration,” Hannity said, noting that our country has separation of powers and checks and balances. Davis retorted by offering Hannity “the facts.” He said the “Supreme Court itself said let’s be cautious about enforcing this law of these reasonable stops because it’s vague, and we are only ruling on a matter of federal power, not on other constitutional grounds.” Davis and Hannity then clashed over whether or not Obama said the immigration law would not be enforced. That’s where the lawlessness comes in, Hannity argued…

If the president “doesn’t like the law, he can change it,” he said. “But he’s got to get Congress to go along with him.”

Via the Daily Rushbo.

• About those “doctored” Benghazi e-mails…
• White House word of the day – Irrelevant
• Is Scandalmania making amnesty more likely?

Blowback