Skip to comments.Byron York: How Obama Could Lose Arizona (Illegal) Immigration Battle
Posted on 04/29/2010 6:53:32 PM PDT by kristinn
We know one thing for sure about the fight over Arizona's new immigration law. Civil-rights groups will file a lawsuit trying to kill the law and will ask a federal judge to issue an injunction to keep it from taking effect as scheduled this summer. What we don't know is how those proceedings will be affected by the Obama Justice Department, which is contemplating the highly unusual step of filing its own suit against the state of Arizona. Also unknown is the influence of President Obama himself, who has gone out of his way to raise questions -- some of them strikingly uninformed -- about the law.
The drafters of the law knew the lawsuit was coming; a lawsuit is always coming when a state tries to enforce the nation's immigration laws. What the drafters didn't expect was Obama's aggressive and personal role in trying to undermine the new measure.
"You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ..." the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." On the same day, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was considering a court challenge.
"The practice of the Justice Department in the past with states involving immigration has been to let the courts settle it and not weigh in as a party," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Having Justice intervene, Kobach and other experts say, would be extraordinary.
The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before -- and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures. In 2008, the state successfully defended its employer-sanctions law, which made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Facing some of the same groups that are now planning to challenge the new law, Arizona prevailed both in federal district court and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's most liberal federal appeals court.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com
Reverand Manning has a few choice words on Obama.
Now who could we find with enough moxy to do such a thing?......Anybody got Michele Bachman's phone number?
Illegal aliens are breaking the law by definition and should be found to be in violation of the law. It's just that simple. Aristotle said "A is A" and this is "A is A".
“...the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.””
Obama has a brain the size of a pea. For being a constitutional law “professor”, er, lecturer, Obama seems to know nothing about the Constitution.
“The practice of the Justice Department in the past with states involving immigration has been to let the courts settle it and not weigh in as a party,”
And the practice of past presidents has been to try not to humiliate another branch of government during State of the Union addresses.
Clinton & Co. may have been adolescents, but this crew and their leader are the definition of “callow”; I keep thinking of Jody Powell & Co. from the `70s.
Fellow freepers, take it easy on this ole freeper, but this must be said....I am warming up to a Brewer/Christi or Christi/Brewer ticket for 2012....they are both so dang smart...
He definitely has something against policemen. I wonder if he has been “harrassed” by policemen before and why. What makes him distrust law enforcment officers? Isn’t the president the chief law enforcer of the land and he states that he will uphold the laws in his oath? Maybe he’s been arrsted. Of course we will never know because his past is non existent.
It's no different than any of us visiting a foreign country, we don't leave our hotel without our passport. DUH!
That’s a great article. I urge everyone to click through and read the entire thing.
The drafters are really wise people.
‘What we don’t know is how those proceedings will be affected by the Obama Justice Department’-—————————————Sure we do...
The case of Obama vs the United States is being played out before our eyes. He has chosen to attack and many states should start asserting their sovereignty now.
“suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”
Quite manipulative talk, isn’t it? Not just kids, but kids eating ice cream. Plucks your heart strings.
Those railing against the law have no idea what it actually says. They are in for a rude surprise. They deserve it for reacting to heresay.
The “Not Ever Ready For Prime Time Players!”
FTA: “some of them strikingly uninformed”
Gets my nomination for best use of understatement in a column...I probably would have gone for less subtle usages like “moronic”, “ignorant”, “unbecoming of a POTUS”, or some such.
We show our papers everyday unless we are illegal aliens..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.