Justice Department to sue Arizona?
posted at 11:03 am on April 29, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
[ Immigration ]
Obama isn’t happy about the new illegal immigration law in Arizona. He’s recruited Eric Holder to his cause now, and is considering suing Arizona to put an end to the enforcement of federal illegal immigration laws.
Officials in the Obama administration are urging the extraordinary step of suing Arizona over its new immigration law, and the Justice Department is considering such an action to block the legislation from taking effect, government officials said Wednesday.
The Arizona law criminalizes illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing and empowers police to question anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” is an illegal immigrant. President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have blasted the legislation, with Obama saying that it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness.”
“The president had strong words to say and the attorney general had strong words to say,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decision has been made. “Considering that it’s signed into law, and Arizona is doing a lot of pomp and circumstance, do you see a friendly way out of this?”
A key legal ground being considered, officials said, is the doctrine of “preemption” — arguing that the state’s law illegally intrudes on immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility.
It really is rich that Obama would argue on the grounds that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. That’s the entire point — it is indeed a federal responsibility. But the federal government has refused to act, and Arizona lawmakers were literally given no other choice but to take matters into their own hands. Even the blathering idiot Robert Gibbs admitted that.
Obama has dropped the ball, and now he’s going to do his best to punish Arizona for picking up his slack. Considering that the new law is overwhelming popular — both in Arizona and nationwide — I’m a little surprised. I’m not surprised that Obama would want to meddle instate affairs or that he would want to keep the flow of illegal immigration going. One would just think that, given Obama’s low approval ratings and the high approval ratings of this law, he might want to sit this one out, especially considering that if the federal government had been doing its job, and enforcing immigration laws, Arizona lawmakers wouldn’t have had to act.
Yes, yes, liberals in the media and in Obama’s circle are hyperventilating over the supposed racism and fascism and Nazism in this new law (none of which actually exists, of course). But everyone else loves it. Obama’s approval ratings are sinking lower each day; Jan Brewer’s skyrocketed after she signed the bill into state law. 70% of Arizona voters approve of the law, and nationwide, 60% are in favor of having a similar law enacted in their states.
Considering all this, is it really the right move for Obama’s Justice Department to try to block this legislation from taking effect? The answer is no, unless of course his goal is to increase the number of Democrats voted out of office this November.
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Holder will argue before the SC that the matter is an essential federal responsibility. Then Obama-Pelosi-Reid will offer the solution: amnesty. They are going to bet the pot on this.
jwolf on April 29, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Yes, it is the right move. He doesn’t care about his poll numbers. He has two goals in mind:
1. Creating unrest and precipitating a national crisis (see Cloward-Piven)
2. Increasing the number of voters who will vote Democrat in order to rig future elections
Illegal aliens + Puerto Rico = what? 20 million people who will vote for a Democratic welfare state? Where’s the downside there?
Daggett on April 29, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Isn’t it rich how holder is so selective on what and who he wants to go after? He will not deal with the black panthers or give information on that terrorist who killed the 14 at Fort Hood. Yet this slug thinks it is his place to go after a state that is only trying to secure their citizens against illegal aliens. A job this bho is suppose to do but won’t.
L
letget on April 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Maybe the justice department should ask Obama-commie for his papers.
tarpon on April 29, 2010 at 11:55 AM
This is so predictable. Whenever you think Obama might want to play it smart and careful, he doubles down. He is a go for broke (pun intended) kind of guy.
odannyboy on April 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM
There is so much actual good he might do to make this law unnecessary and yet his choice is to widen divides and make things worse. What kind of insanity propels this guy. I think he’s mad as a hatter.
jeanie on April 29, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I love that one of the arguments is the notion of “fairness”. How fair is it for people to come here illegally and take away money and benefits from actual citizens? How fair is it for people to have their property or lives stolen? How fair is it for those who come here legally to have to wait and work their way through the federal beauracy? By all means, let’s talk about fairness.
texabama on April 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM
You really can’t tell an illegal immigrant just by looking at the person. This is why the police have to have probable cause that the individual is violating some non-immigration-related law just to pull them over.
All the ID the police officer will need initially is a valid driver’s license, and an unobstructed view of the car’s license plate. That may be all the officer ever needs.If Inigo Julio Esperanzo Garza y Blanco has a valid license, and the car is registered to him (or someone related), he just documented himself.
Immigration doesn’t even come up unless the license is missing or nonexistent, and/or the car’s license plate is invalid or registered to one of those operations that holds titles for illegal aliens.
I don’t see anybody burdened beyond the usual need to carry your driver’s license. Which you should be doing anyway.
Sekhmet on April 29, 2010 at 1:54 PM
‘basic notions of fairness’…is not a law. AZ has a law that isn’t even being enforced yet(July) and no one has been asked for their papers. If they based it on fed law and used the trespass angle, they’re probably good to go. If the doj takes them to court and wins based on the fact that it is a fed responsibility, then could the judge tell them to do their damn job?
Kissmygrits on April 29, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Situations where people must present proper papers:
• When getting your children out of the government-assigned public school and into an elite public school.
•When challenged to prove you have health insurance.
•When you wish to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and keep and bear arms.
•When you wish to buy alcohol.
•When you wish to buy tobacco.
•When you want to buy a frigging decongestant.
Situations where demanding people present proper papers is absolutely unacceptable and RAAAAACIST!:
•Showing up to vote.
•Getting birth control while a minor and without parental consent or knowledge.
•Getting an abortion while a minor and without parental consent or knowledge.
•Getting public assistance, funded by American citizens and legal, documented aliens.
- Polipundit
MB4 on April 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM
I’m kinda looking forward to hearing Eric explain the “doctrine of preemptive inaction” he appears to espouse.
mojo on April 30, 2010 at 4:37 PM