image No surprise, the U.S. Justice Department is suing the state of Arizona over their stand against illegal immigration through the law that they passed due to take effect on July 29th.

AFP reports, and you have got to roll your eyes over the headline, “US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law.”  No the law is not “anti-immigration” it is anti-illegal immigration, but this is the type of media spin we should be accustomed to.  I digress…  they write:

A Justice Department statement said it was challenging the new state law in the courts because it hampered the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy.

It also placed significant "burdens" on federal agencies and law enforcement, the department argued.

Federal laws do not permit the development of a "patchwork of state and local immigration policies," it said.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," US Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.

Arizona, the Justice Department said, "crossed a constitutional line."

Some questions that come to mind as I read this statement yesterday…

  • How does a state enforcing federal law hamper the administration’s ability to enforce national immigration policy?
  • What examples can the administration cite where they’ve enforced national immigration policy (as far as what the law states, not what their political position is)?
  • If they are overburdened shouldn’t they welcome state assistance?
  • I wonder if Attorney General Eric Holder has still hasn’t read the Arizona law as it just mirrors existing federal law.  So how does this represent a patchwork?
  • Holder is right that setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration law is a national responsibility.  Why have they done a lousy job doing it?
  • Also state and local law enforcement agencies partner with federal agencies in enforcing federal law all of the time, how is this any different?
  • What constitutional line has been crossed?

Obviously the Obama Administration had no plans to work with Arizona on this issue.  They’ve resisted it from the get go, and I think the reason they have done is because they don’t agree with existing federal law (apparently they don’t like voting rights laws either).  They could have avoided this by just enforcing their own law, but here they are wasting taxpayer money fighting against a law that has taxpayer support.  Crazy.

If the federal court does not rule in Arizona’s favor, here we have another opportunity for a state to apply nullification.

2 comments
  1. Now more than ever do we need reasonable and moral immigration law reform. Sadly, with the nativists on the right and big labor on the left, this will likely not happen. And thus the weakest and most vulnerable in our society will pay dearly.

    1. I agree Wayne, I’m pro-immigration… we need to look at how we can help people enter and stay here legally, as well as, make sure our borders are secure. It is appalling how long some people have to wait.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Does Trump’s Proposed Budget Cut Off Abortion Providers?

President Donald Trump’s administration says they are withholding funding from abortion providers including Planned Parenthood in his first budget.

A Busy August With My Bosses

David Young: It’s your voices which make the most difference on Capitol Hill which is why I travel to each county in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District every month.

Congressman Steve King on Net Neutrality: I Support an Open and Independent Internet

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 yesterday to approve net neutrality rules…

EPA’s New Ozone Rule Will Be a Deadly, Regressive Tax on Poor and Millennials

Cornwall Alliance: The Environmental Protection Agency’s new ozone rule does nothing but harm the poor and millennials while providing no net benefit.