Posted on 07/14/2010 12:09:14 PM PDT by kcvl
Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona
No plan to file lawsuits for refusing to cooperate with feds
The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/
ICE director: States shouldn’t follow Arizona lead on immigration...
RICHMOND, Va.—The director of the nation’s immigration enforcement agency says states should not follow Arizona’s lead and enact strict new immigration laws because ridding the country of illegal immigrants is the federal government’s job.
Director John Morton says he doesn’t think 50 different immigration enforcement laws is the answer to the nation’s immigration troubles.
Arizona’s law takes effect July 29th and directs police enforcing other laws to ask about a suspect’s immigration status if there is reason to believe that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Opponents have said the law will lead to racial profiling, and so far seven lawsuits, including one from the federal government, have been filed to try to stop its implementation.
So far, lawmakers in about 20 states have said they will push similar measures, with bills already filed in Rhode Island and four other states.
I would think they would have a stronger case against “sanctuary cities” for under enforcing the law than against Arizona for over enforcing the law. But then this Justice Dept. is not about the law.
how can they be interferring with fed law if the feds aren’t actively enforcing the law...??...this makes no damn sense at all...
oh wait i forgot who we were talking about for a second...
I would think this decision would come back to bite them in upcoming hearings on the Arizona suit. A city or state which refuses to assist the federal government in applying the law, is just as obstructive as a state which (purportedly) interferes with federal application of the law. But, I guess we'll see...
So when the Feds ask local help in apprehending bank robbers,drug dealers,kidnappers,and on and on the locals will be within their rights to refuse.Arizona should start by having its LEOs refuse to assist any federal law enforcement.
If you were to consider the unchecked, rampant illegal immigration an invasion (which I think there is ample evidence to support) then the “sanctuary city” policy is an act of Treason, for it is nothing less than giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Of course they won’t.
To do so would be “racist”.
You have a nice day. :)
With this ameteur hour administration, up is down and down is up.
You know you really have problems when the chief law enforcement officer attacks those who are trying to ensure the law is enforced!
Sanctuary Cities, just be being them, violate USC 8 section 1324.
Holder's "Justice" Department is a racist, Marxist sick joke.
What I can’t understand is why Arizona (as a state) can’t stop cities within it from being “sanctuaries.”
I will say right off that I don’t like the famous AZ law - because I think it’s unenforceable, it places too much of a burden on the police (because even if they illegals over to Immigration, these people won’t be deported, it’s a lot of paperwork and in fact sometimes even criminal charges against them will get lost), and I think it gives the Dems a chance to stir up hysteria among their constituency.
However, I don’t see why the State of Arizona could not have passed a law prohibiting cities from becoming “sanctuary cities” - at the cost of state aid. That would have been practical and effective.
Sanctuary cities represent a disintegrative function toward a nation-state, legitimizing “barbarian incursions” as has occurred all through history. There is no difference here. Neither the Administration or the Congress is defending the integrity or the union of the US, whether along the Southern border or in so-called sanctuary cities. In addition, some Islamic and Hispanic enclaves are developing in the US as already exist widely in Europe, especially in regard to Muslims, as police “no or little-go zones”.
Where is the Congressional rhetoric regarding maintenance of the territorial integrity of the US and the legitimacy of existing Federal law? Arizonans are acutely aware of the situation.
I knew they were somehow going to have to justify suing a state that’s upholding federal law vs. not suing cities that interfere with federal law.
I just thought they’d come up with a better quality of BS than this. The spin is really disappointing.
I suggest arizona save the cost of deporting illegals and just bus them to the nearest sanctuary city, if the liberals there want more illegals make their dreams come true
That doesn’t surprise me, Houston openly supports sanctuary status for illegals.
Perfect example of corrupt government from the bottom all the way to Uncle Sugar up in Washington.
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.