Reacciones de Obama y Romney al fallo del TS sobre la ley migratoria de Arizona

The New York Times:

The rivals for the presidency reacted swiftly on Monday to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of Arizona’s aggressive immigration laws while letting a controversial provision stand.

President Obama said the decision to stop enforcement of parts of the Arizona law underscored the need for comprehensive immigration reform by the federal government. But he said he remained concerned about a provision that requires the police to check the status of people they suspect may be in the country illegally.

“I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally,” Mr. Obama said. “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”

(...) In his statement, Mr. Obama vowed to “work with anyone in Congress” to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform. But he said that in the meantime he would “continue to use every federal resource,” a reference to the deportation policy he announced two weeks ago.

Mitt Romney issued a brief statement saying he supported aggressive efforts by states to fight illegal immigration.

“I believe that each state has the duty – and the right – to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities,” Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, said in a written statement.

(...) In his statement, Mr. Romney said that the ruling “underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this president.”

But he did not say whether he thought the court had erred in invalidating parts of the state’s law. Nor did he express specific support for the Arizona provisions that the court upheld.