2010 July 06 Tuesday
Obama Moves To Block Arizona On Immigration Law
Obama is against local law enforcement - at least when he really doesn't want the law enforced at all.
The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona, charging that the state's new immigration law is unconstitutional and requesting a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect.
Obama does not want immigration law enforced.
Curiously, the federal government has produced a huge mountain of laws over the last 40 years in areas that were historically the prerogative of states. Yet Obama or most of the Left don't seem to think they should be restrained by the constitution as they violate the constitution. They just appoint judges who will disregard the letter of the law.
The lawsuit says the law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, invoking as its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility and says an injunction is needed to prevent "irreparable harm" to the United States.
What form does this "irreparable harm" take? Illegal immigrants will be deported. Some people who would otherwise enter the country illegally will decide not to break US law. How does this constitute "irreparable harm"? Arizona's law is designed to empower local police to enforce federal law. It isn't designed to empower local police to undermine federal law. Rather, enforcement of the Arizona law will undermine federal undermining of federal law.
Look at federal drug law. Imagine that police stopped busting heroin dealers. The federal government would throw a conniption. The federal government has no problem with local enforcement of federal law when the federal government really wants the law enforced.
Where does it say in the constitution that the states can't enforce immigration law? Where does it say that states can't enforce federal laws?
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If Arizona loses in court, I hope several states react by suing the federal government for failing to enforce those immigration laws.
My hope is that Arizona loses and then several states refuse to assist the feds in any federal law enforcement issues - CA becomes defacto legal for Marijuana, Montana can effectively go back to no speed limit, Louisiana to a drinking age of 18 all by non-enforcement.
Sure some of those are in place via highway moneys, but the logical endpoint to the Feds' position to me is that states should not help to enforce federal laws or regulations, so you keep the laws on the books #for the funding# while publicly announcing they won't be enforced, lest there be a later lawsuit by the feds for enforcing a federal law or regulation.
Why pussy foot around? Secession. That's the ticket.
It would really be interesting if Arizona loses in court (which I expect given the composition of the federal judiciary), and Gov. Jan Brewer repeats the 21st Century equivalent of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door by asserting that the state will defy the court's decision and continue to enforce federal law on the books.
Imagine then the position that the Obama people will then be in: they'll have to prosecute the State of Arizona to try to keep them from enforcing a federal law that they won't enforce themselves! I'll be selling peanuts and beer on the sidelines.
Migrating (moving across a border) Does Not Entail the Right to:
1. Claim immigrant status without having gone through the correct legal procedures. Immigration is a mutually consensual agreement between migrant and host nation.
2. Enter any country without the residents’ permission.
3. Violate a country’s laws.
4. Mock the residents of an entered country.
5. Remain ignorant of the cultures, habits, languages, norms, or ethics of the residents of an entered country.
6. Behave as if migrant cultural norms represent unique human attributes, if those norms are common to many human cultures.
7. Expect the residents of an entered country to speak the migrants’ language or translate anything into that language. Any such endeavor is a kindness, not a right.
8. Remain in a country without seeking citizenship of that country and expect the civic rights of residents to apply to non-citizens. By definition of the terms, such rights apply only to citizens.
9. Take monies or benefits that are for residents, whether money is paid in or not.
10. Lie, propagandize, and revise history to take advantage of the residents of an entered country.
11. Name the residents of an entered country and expect them to adopt that name.
12. Expect the citizens of an entered country to behave according to the migrants’ desires, and coerce, threaten, blackmail, or disparage them when they do not.
13. Refuse to adopt any of the language, culture, ethics or norms of the entered country but expect the residents to admire migrants without giving adequate cause for admiration. Existing and working is not adequate cause; all humans do this or they perish.
14. Expect and demand respect and enjoyment. Honor is given to all, respect is earned and reciprocal. Treating a country, its residents and laws without respect is disrespectful and anyone doing so is not worthy of being respected in turn. The ability to take criticism is the mark of a mature culture worthy of inclusion in a democracy. Enjoyment is a matter of taste.
15. Refuse anyone the fundamental right inherent in freedom: the right to say no.
Oh, I thought Elly was talking about real Immigration Law. Well yes; I mean, she is right, some of them are real law, but some of those 15 "non-rights" are really things she dislikes; so they should belong in a separate "Things I dislike about immigrants" list, to which another 100 or 1000 points can be added...
Of course number 3, "Violate a country’s laws" is objectively a non-right, but then again it is so for everybody: foreign illegal immigrants, foreign legal resident immigrants, foreign-born legal citizen immigrants, european-descent-born-citizen immigrants and native american citizens -if you can find any of those last ones anywhere-
Number 2, "Enter any country without the residents’ permission" is of course a subjective fallacy; 'cause legally speaking, one thing is National Territory and another very different one is Private Property... I know that many Americans tend to confuse those two very often. Private residents cannot "give" or "deny" such a permission to a foreigner, even if it be sibling or parent.