So let us pretend that Arizona is Philadelphia, and the border is entrance to a polling building, and law enforcement is a Black Panther wielding a night stick wanting to kill cracker babies....well hell, this Department Of Justice would never have even brought this case to court at all then.
Obama and crew have for months made this immigration problem a "racial issue" rather than an economic, security, and enforcement of law issue.
The democrats are up in arms declaring Arizona's right to protect itself is a controversial law that 'could lead to' racial profiling.
Ironic after months of Obama stirring up race discord with walking the dawg - ice cream parlor- show me your papers horror scenarios, and burning the midnight oil to find some chink in the Arizona statue, that when the DOJ filed their lawsuit (pdf) today there was no mention of potential Unconstitutional 'racial profiling' in it other than to refer to an amendment that was added to the original S.B. 1070 law to clarify to those who had -"expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling."
The lawsuit does not go on to declare that it would.
Perhaps, despite months of creating or saving 11 million potential votes, the accused corrupt & racial preferential DOJ could not point to an area in the Arizona law that would actually produce the controversial hysteria promoted by the Obama shout outs.
Although the suit describes nicely what the various functions of the federal government (and its Agencies) are supposed to be -- its operation sadly lacks the track record that it has performed those functions listed -that it feels Arizona's law would be interfering with.
I have read the Arizona Law and the Federal lawsuit (unlike some of those who wanted it filed) and although I am not versed in LAW - it appears that the DOJ suit is quite disingenuous where it claims the word use of - "require", "MUST", and "mandatory" when describing its application and objections.
The Arizona law gives MORE civil rights protections in it than the Federal law does and the Arizona law was carefully crafted to not pre-empt federal law.
The principle that protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of concurrent enforcement. This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. Similarly, if a state officer acts in a way to assist the federal government in that action, he concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.
The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.
The reported 11-20 million illegal trespassers certainly points to the fact that the borders are NOT secure and the federal government has NOT done an adequate job of doing their job- alone.
If the 'kick the can down the road' federal government had done one of their primary jobs of border enforcement protection then States like Arizona would never have had to even pass a secure our border law.
It is reported that 58% of Americans approve of Arizona's Inherit & Sovereign Authority to protect its land and citizens- and in so doing securing the rest of America and all citizens too. Yet Obama is calling on national legislation to prevent other states from following suit.
The lawsuit states an objection to what it calls a "patchwork" of immigration policies: The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.
¿ Where have they been? State after State has its own written immigration laws - including California.
Certainly the federal government fails in this argument when it hasn't done a thing at all to pounce on any illegal sanctuary-city 'patchwork' policies that are providing a safe haven for alien law breakers "throughout the country".
Should they win using this "patchwork" argument will the feds prosecute illegal sanctuary cities or continue with selective political enforcement policies?
Arizona has declared it has had enough of non performance entitlement and is at the fountainhead of actually performing application and enforcement of law which threatens the Federal powers collective. Such individualism of State cannot be permitted nor spread.
Are there other reasons to explain why the DOJ has filed a suit attacking a State who has done nothing more than mirror a federal law to protect our land and citizens from unlawful invasion and continued economic disaster?
Could it be because under Obama's social leftist appointees the DOJ is now a political arm of Obama's get out the Latino vote-surge for November?
Don't forget that Mr. Uniter plays the national division card whenever he gets into any power to persuade trouble.
Remember back in April when Obama said his under siege transformation of America needed forward progress help and to 'reconnect' he called for "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 to stand together once again"...in the upcoming 2010 elections.
What? No lawn-chair seniors included?
This president could have worked with Arizona and all concerned states to secure our border and to douse the angry disingenuous flame spread about this Arizona Law but instead he chooses to carry a 'demographic' political torch.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment