Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Obama Administration To Sue Arizona Over Illegal Alien Law

Lessee now...the last time I looked, we had an occupation in Iraq to wind down, major problems in Obama's war in Afghanistan, Iran, a huge oil spill in the Gulf, 9.7 percent unemployment across the country and a government so mired in debt that the Democrat Congress isn't even going to bother submitting a Congressional budget this year.

So what does Obama do?Declare war on Arizona:

Obama administration sources tell ABC News that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its immigration law, likely next week.

The suit has been expected for some time now. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American television interviewer that the president had told the Justice Department to file the suit on the basis that it's the constitutional responsibility of the federal government -- not states -- to set immigration policy.

"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy," Clinton told the interviewer on station NTN 24. "And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.

Some commentators like the Weekly Standard's John McCormack evidences some surprise at this move. The law was well constructed to survive a court challenge, and as he points out for the most part previous state immigration laws have been upheld anyway so there doesn't seem much substance to the suit. Aside from the Arizona law's huge popularity nationwide, the Feds will also have a problem with the argument that only the feds are allowed to enforce immigration laws when Arizona brings up the federally offered Basic Immigration Enforcement Training (BIET) for local law enforcement, an online program that teaches them how to enforce the federal statutes that SB1070 mirrors.

If the locals aren't supposed to enforce federal immigration laws, why are the Feds teaching them how to do so? And if SB1070 is discriminatory and leads to 'profiling' then the federal laws are discriminatory too.

It's going to be a difficult legal argument to pull off..but a successful legal outcome isn't the reason for the suit. Just like everything else withthis president, it's all about politics.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Democrats have almost entirely lost the majority of White, senior, middle class and independent voters beyond all redemption.

With the midterms coming up in a few months, the Democrats are desperately trying to mobilize the youth and minority vote to counteract this.

No matter how the court challenge goes, the very fact that it's being launched is designed to secure points with what I will politely refer to as the pro amnesty constituency and get them to the polls to pull the lever for the Democrats.

Seen from that standpoint rather than law, justice or what might ultimately be best for the country, the move makes perfect sense.

(hat tip, memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!


Benito said...

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Benito,
I find your arguments flawed on several points.

Women and non-whites have the vote ( and in the case of blacks, their freedom) simply because the majority, including the MAJORITY - the always-despised white males - decided it was the right thing to do and crafted legislation and fought a war to make it so. And both women and blacks were both legal citizens of America when that legislation was passed.

Also, the last time I checked, we didn't have separate restrooms, schools, housing, ER rooms or any other facilities that have a sign saying 'no illegal aliens allowed'. Rather the reverse, in fact. Your attempt to coflate this with women's suffrage and the civil rights struggle is not only factually incorrect, it's borderline offensive.

As for doing what is right, I fully agree. Part of what is right to my reckoning is that people who came across illegally simply because they could should get in line behind the thousands who applied to become residents legally.

Here's a test for you, Benito.

What if we allowed illegal aliens to stay provided they registered but enacted a 'points' system for illegal aliens based on criteria like having learned English, no criminal record, valuable skills, provable time in the country and most important a guarantor like a family member to sign a legal document guaranteeing that the alien they're sponsoring will not become a public charge...with anyone not meeting the criteria subject to immediate deportation, no questions asked?

What if we eliminated the turgid 'path to citizenship' rhetoric and made a law that allowing qualified illegal aliens with guarantors to stay in the US, but the residency period for citizenship for illegal aliens starts after all existing legal visa applicants have been processed?

That would be a fair and just system that would also take care of US security needs in a post 9/11 world.

You up for that, or do you merely want to encourage low wage blue collar slavery - and a voting bloc of non-taxpayers?


Benito said...

“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law, that many internet bloggers claim it was copied “Word for Word” from the Federal law, which I frankly do not believe, if it was then no amendments would have been made, right?, of course, keep those lies coming.

As for the undocumented workers, as was attributed to Ronald Reagan “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good we say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when the economy is down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass, the real problem is the narcos, arms and people smugglers and that’s what the focus should be on.

Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Brewer for Governor, she is trying to get elected on the back of undocumented workers, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled. In the last few months Busy Brewer has passed S.B. 1070, no permit conceal weapons law, the famous Birthers law, banning Ethnic studies law, (could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona) and if history is a lesson and if she can read, she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which failed when legally challenged) and the craziest one the boycott of Martin Luther King Day, not wanting another holiday, how crazy is that. I believe there is an undercurrent to their enactment of new laws, they real love following a distinct pattern. Poor Brewer, in an attempt to gain sympathy, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) and we find out her father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955 (watch her play the victim card, again) and then she went to Washington and came back empty as always, poor dear.

Freedom Fighter said...

Your failure to answer any of the points I raised or address my reply in any cognizant way is duly noted, Benito.

Instead, you did what the Left frequently does - pick out somebody to demonize, as if that somehow proves anything.

You'll have to do better than that, amigo.

BTW, the Founders never said 'all men re created equal.' What they said was that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among them were the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They said nothing about the proposed American government guaranteeing those rights for everybody on earth.

Do the research, and you'll find that SB1070 mirrors US laws that have been on the books since the 1940's, to wit TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12 SUBCHAPTER II Part VII > § 1304. Especially take note of paragraph e.

Even our bent Justice Department admits that the entire Constitutional argument is based on whether the states have the right to enforce immigration statutes, and since the Feds are already instructing them how to do that as I pointed out, it's not an argument that's likely to fly.

Nice try, no sale.