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.
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!
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.
While it might be very difficult and painful to do, I wonder if state government can legally withhold state funds from these despicable “sanctuary cities”??
Meanwhile the RAT/FED/GUV absolutely REFUSES to enforce our border/immigration laws,,ABSOLUTELY,, DEFINITELY!!!!!
Totally true. The Arizona law interferes with the Feds intent to NOT enforce immigration law.
They may pay lip service occassionally to the right thing: "Let's get bin Laden" or "Deficit spending is bad.", but they always oppose anything that would actually lead to resolutions of those things.
hmmm.....you think if some local Mayor or Governor refused to use their resources to help the Feds go after TAX SCOFFLAWS it would get their attention???