if the petitioner had been a long time permanent resident, i think that gramm verses richardson would apply and it would be an easy case. conversely, if they were a tourist going to disneyland or an illegal alien, then i think that the state of arizona would be in a much stronger position. i also think that it is relevant. what happened to the vaccine that she was denied. was there an american citizen standing by behind her that was going to get the vaccine yet she was denied it. if you look at the immigration status and you look at what happened to that vaccine, is there an american citizen right behind her and is the arizona state allowed to say that they want that american citizen to get the vaccine as opposed to this non-citizen who is in a particular immigration status. i think that the problem was brilliant because it had heard in this unusual immigration status which is neither permanent resident nor agreed visitor. asylum status lets someone stay in the country for a year, but if they do not have that they have done that is bad, they can adjust their status. in a sense, we hav

the architects and petitioners of german anti-jewish policies knew how to conceal the intentions.more than that, the contradiction and changes in nazi policy show that in the 1930s, at least in nazis had no clear idea about the destination. the holocaust as we know it was not a foregone conclusion. only the contemporary records are free from the blinding clarity of hindsight. but why should such documents becoming into like only now? why is there indeed no english-language collection available for university teaching or the wider public documenting the breath and riches of jewish responses to nazi prosecution. for one being, there has been helping of eastern european archives since the early '90s. secretive and a moscow archive with the entire papers of the important jewish self-defense organization, a central association of german citizens of the jewish faith. material now available at the united states holocaust memorial archive, and an important source mark and i could draw on for this volume. moreover, it has been the perpetrators and not the victims who received most attentio

the architects and petitioners of german anti-jewish policies knew how to conceal their intentions.more than that, the contradictions and changes and nazi policy show that in the night and 30's at least even nazis had no idea about the destination, the holocaust as we know it was not a full block conclusion. only the contemporary records are free from the blinding clarity of hindsight. but why should such documents be coming to light only now. why is there indeed no english-language collection available for university teaching for the public documenting the breadth and richness of jewish responses to not nazi persecution. for one thing, there has been the opening of eastern european archives since the early 1990's. secretive and a moscow archive for the entire paper is that the important jewish soap defense organization, the central association of german citizens of the jewish faith. a rich of material now available at the united tape holocaust holocaust for this volume. moreover, it has been the the perpetrators and not the big dems who received most attention. we have seen for exa

. >> suarez: so, the petitioners were in court today . how did that argument, that a petition signature, should be able to be rendered private, in effect, go down with the justices? >> there was-- there were many skeptical questions. james bob represented protect marriage washington, which wants to keep the signatures private. and he argued that signing a petition is really a political statement and is at the heart of first amendment protection. the state of washington has to have a compelling reason for making them public. he immediately encountered justice scalia. he told mr. bob in the first 100 years of our existence, even voting was public. the fact is, he said, running a democracy takes a certain amount of significant courage, and the first amendment doesn't protect people who engage in civic discourse, doesn't protect them from nasty phone calls. he said mr. bob was asking for the court to create a whole new right, in essence, for petition signers. >> suarez: the state of washington was seeking to preserve its existing public recor

right to free speech along with the free press comer freedom of religion and assembly and right to petitionerght us they're not to be taken for granted but to defended and defined from generation to generation our concepts change from time to time and new challenges to the extent of the freedom is always on the horizon. >> the first amendment is essential to the american way of life and it guarantees freedoms to express ourselves prepaid many people feel the freedom of speech is more than just the strength of the nation's >> it is what we're all about to protect our freedoms and we would not be where we are today without it. >> i think the fact that the constitution really form say fundamental framework for providing us freedoms in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression not only those but also a solid framework for how to go about changing our government if you want to change the government. >> of first amendment guarantees five basic rates breed religion, speech, press, ass embly and petitioned or protest. >>

another case showed that the petitioner never worked at the affiliate, forged documents to enter ourountry, and the office that he claimed to be working in never existed. and that -- and another case show that managerial experience was not a prerequisite to enter. in fact, a pizza parlor manager from turkey claimed to supervise two employees. questions, let me ask five questions kind of related. fraud detection and national security director is working on a report on the l-1 these abuse. could you tell me of that has been finished? and can you share that information with me? let me stop on those two questions before i go on to the others. >> sitting right here i do not know the answers to those questions, but i will get that to you. i will say that the director and his group has really been working on -- have been working on making sure those visa programs have been run well and we are looking at the whole issue of fraud. i would also say on the h-1b the says that you mentioned earlier, it is interesting that the amount of applications are down this year substantially. that allows us

they're very stylized documents where they say the petitioner claims such and such, and there is an analysisse. very often, you can decide in tedder 15 seconds that that is not a case that is worthy of attention to the court. i did not join the pool because it thought it was an inefficient method for the particular justice going to the petition. those that followed may have made the other decision, and they have made it 8 justice pool rather than a five justice pool. it is not the most efficient way to process, but it is a thorough way. they'll get well advised about the matters, and they are equipped to vote on the cases, but it is just a matter of personal efficiency i think maybe they are feeling the same way, rather elaborate memos on all the petitions is such a time-consuming process that he thought he could do it in a more efficient way in his own chambers. >> is doing so also give you or your clerks and nectar feeling that you have actually taken yourselves within your own chambers, take a look at the petitions themselves, as well as a being more efficient? >> i trust them to be able