Skip to comments.The hypocrisy of 'US v. Arizona'
Posted on 07/07/2010 3:17:08 AM PDT by Scanian
THE legal case against the Ari zona immigration law is unassailable. The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that the law impermissibly "conflicts with federal law and enforcement priorities," in the words of the ACLU suit.
And who can disagree? Clearly, Arizona's priority is to enforce the nation's immigration laws; the federal government's priority is to ignore them as much as possible. Case closed.
President Obama last week warned ominously of a "patchwork" of immigration laws arising as "states and localities go their own ways." Sanctuary cities acting in open defiance of immigration laws have never notably been the object of his wrath. (Who's to judge the good-hearted people of Berkeley?) There's only one part of the dismaying patchwork that stirs Obama's Cabinet to outrage and his attorney general to legal action -- Arizona's commitment to enforcement.
The legal fight between the federal government and Arizona will be a case of dueling insincere arguments. The federal government will pretend that it objects to Arizona supposedly creating a wholly new scheme of immigration regulation, when its real problem is that the state wants to take existing law too seriously.
Arizona will pretend that it is acting in keeping with long-standing federal intent, when its law never would have been necessary if the feds intended to enforce their own statutes.
The case against Arizona rests on "pre-emption," the notion that federal law "occupies the field" on immigration and prevents states from passing their own regulations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Democrats and establishment Republicans are for Amnesty and open borders. Question is why? Could it be that they are for eliminating the United States and merging in to the much cited ‘New World Order’? To me it seems to be the only logical explanation.
For years the so called ‘Kooks’ have been warning us.
I am thinking the kooks are right.
The argument that the Arizona law impermissibly conflicts with federal law and enforcement priorities basically says that the State of Arizona does not have permission to enforce federal law because the federal government does not enforce its own laws. Arizona wants to protect its citizens from rape, murder, and mayhem but does not have permission to do so? This makes sense to the ACLU and others with disordered minds (Democrats).
Whether this suit gets anywhere depends upon how dumbed-down our country has become after 50 or more years of domination by Democrats.
Can the federal government be sued for NOT enforcing it’s immigration laws?
Hey obama do you have a fence around the white house? Or do you just let anyone wander in and do as they please?
“Can the federal government be sued for NOT enforcing its immigration laws?”
They need to be sued for non-enforcement, that’s for sure.
It gets tricky but basically if its about 'Civil Rights' (Like God & Religion), YES, you can sue them. If it's just 'in general' (I don't 'like that') - No. Then you have to have their permission to sue them (how dumb is that).
And even on the remote chance they say, 'sure go ahead, sue us'. There's that Fed Judge who will likely say you don't have 'standing'.
This is the 'Reader's Digest' version. Due to the massive US Code there's always exceptions to the rules. Not to mention Case Law and 'starry decide us' /s
The congress passes laws including the federal budget. If (this oftens happens) the congress provides no money to enforce its own laws (there are many on the books), then the laws are not enforced.
Orderly change is through the election process to get representatives who will carry out the will of the people who elected them.
“Can the federal government be sued for NOT enforcing its immigration laws?”
They cannot be sued. But Obama can be impeached for not defending the Constitution.
The “United States” is suing for the right to not do it’s job according to the Constitution.
It was good while it lasted.
But it’s over.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The inability of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances is the number one reason we have the corruption we have, and why it doesn’t matter what laws are passed (thus making even elections moot because who we elect only impacts what laws are made, and if they’re not enforced they may as well not exist).
How do we get out of this mess? How do we re-establish that American citizens DO suffer harm and deserve to be able to petition the government for a redress of grievances even if everybody else is ALSO being harmed by a government disobeying the law and failing to do what it was created to do?
How can the official legal doctrine be that as long as the government is screwing EVERYBODY, nobody can do anything about it legally because they haven’t suffered “particularized harm”?
As long as Hitler was exterminating ALL “undesireables”, it seems like the American system would allow those “undesireables” no legal recourse to even QUESTION what was being done - because the very massive scale of the crime that made it so heinous would actually mean that nobody was singled out for the “particularized harm” necessary for them to have legal “standing”. How can this be?
Do we need a Constitutional amendment? How do we overturn the years of precedent which handcuff the American people?
It’s seems that Obama’s only hope to win is for the the courts to rule that Arizona state and local law enforcement should be PROHIBITED from helping the feds enforce federal law.
BUT WAIT! To do that would also prohibit state and local law enforcement from helping the FBI in catching bank robbers, kidnappers, not to even mention terrorists.
You have to wonder why the Justice Department is taking this action. SB 1070 merely parrots the Federal Law and makes reference to the following section of Title 8 repeatedly. If there is to be no local or State law enforcement of immigration, why does this section exist in the U.S. Code?
1373. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entities
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information
Come to think of it, they did let the Salahi's just wander in and sit a spell..
Good article -
good point. there should be a movement to have that fence removed and all patrols of the perimeter should cease
let’s see the response on that one... the comparison would be very telling
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; ...
Yet the federal government is illegally and unconstitutionally ceding land in Arizona to Mexican invaders.
Now, I guess this must be like the Article II, Section 1 natural born citizen requirement, that the states likewise have no standing to ask that black-letter provisions of our Constitution be adhered to.
Or maybe the argument this time will again be "oh, there's no enforcing legislation for Article IV, section 4, or for Article II, Section 1, so these are just meaningless inkblots like the Ninth Amendment!" (To misquote one of Bork's silliest utterances.)
The law suit is not hypocritical. The law suit is a defense, a stalling tactic. The requested injunction if granted will stall and prevent enforcement. The final out come is known. They will lose.
In the meantime, the defensive barb wire and sandbags might prevent overrunning the position until the amnesty law can be passed. The pacifist liberal wackos must be appeased
The law is being abused and has become grounds for abusing other laws..... those protecting the bodily well being of the President
The Feds have told the citizens of AZ that they don’t have a right to protect themselves, which is an abrogation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
I think the only alternative here is for the citizens to take the law into their own hands.
Our dilema is that we've been down this road to perdition for over 100 years.
Starting with the 'progressive' Teddy Roosevelt and his legal war against the 'Robber Barons' (if it wasn't for those Robber Barons' the USA wouldn't BE the USA.)
Then we had the 'progressive' Woodrow Wilson and his 'vision' of a One World Government (Wilson was really a hateful bigoted SOB). Thanks to 'progressives' like him we LOST our 9th and 10th Amendment rights with the 17th Amendment (adopted on April 8, 1913) and direct election of Senators. They no longer owed their allegiance to their state and protecting its Rights.
Which gets is the FDR. Another 'progressive' and the worst of the bunch. What he pulled before and during WWII should have put him in prison. While Hitler sent people to 'Death Camps', FDR just sent them to 'camps' (not only Japs were rounded up). And anyone who disagreed with FDR would 'disappear' -- like a State Dept Message Decoder employee in London who was going to give a message FDR sent to Churchill to the Republicans in Congress. The guy was 'snatched' when he stepped foot of the boat in New York and 'disappeared' (Ann Coulter - Treason).
Then came the 'progressives' on the Fed Courts and SCOTUS. They let Congress run amok with the Commerce Clause in ways that would make the Founders go ballistic. For seventy years at least Congress has played their game with the 'CC', and STILL DO, like ObamaDeathCare. Not until 'The Rehnquist Court' did SCOTUS start overturning blatantly unconstitutional Commerce Clause Laws. I won't even go into asinine rulings like Roe or Lawrence v Texas.
An aside: As Alexander Hamilton said regarding the Constitution: 'We didn't spend enough time on the Courts'.So 'we've suffered a long train of abuses' [(gee, that sounds familiar ;-)], and an Amendment won't solve any of it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights need to be restored and the way things are going ... well... it won't be easy, or pretty.
(Boy did he ever have that right.)
Yep. I think the citizens hurt by non-enforcement of our federal laws have a case, too.