Attorney General, Eric Holder, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and their new immigration law. According to the Associated Press the basis for the Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit is as follows:
“The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.”
The lawsuit is also seeking a temporary injunction to keep the law from going into effect on July 29th. Most suspect that the federal government will indeed be granted this injunction.
Interestingly, there was no mention in the lawsuit of any civil rights violations based on profiling concerns. This makes the point the law is not prejudicial, which had been previously argued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Obama administration, and the entire left wing population. Thus, there is no credence to progressive claims that the law is racist or bigoted in any manor. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with all American citizens being required to carry proof of their citizenship at all times. Arizona residents only need to carry their driver’s license and or their green card when they are out. Any U.S. citizen pulled over for a traffic violation must provide proof of citizenship, regardless of race, by showing their drivers license (to obtain a drivers license individuals must be a U.S. citizen). Only if a person fails to show their drivers license is law enforcement able to investigate further into the individual’s citizenship status. This is not only fair, but it is already the law. In fact, in the case Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that law enforcement had the right to question an individual about their immigration status while doing their job. Mena had argued that this violated her fourth amendment rights.
So who will win the lawsuit? It seems that law experts are equally divided. One argument in favor of the DOJ case is their argument that the Arizona law may set a bad precedent that would allow each of the 50 states to draft and enforce their own immigration laws. However, illegal immigration does not affect each state equally, so different enforcement laws may not necessarily be a bad outcome. Many legal experts siding with the federal government’s case clearly feel that the Arizona law is infringing on federal law. On the other hand, other experts claim that the Arizona law is much more lenient than the federal statues on record. Hence, all the claims that the Arizona law is harsh are obviously misguided overtures by ill informed citizens.
Those that favor the Arizona law claim that this law does not infringe on federal law, but only enforces the federal law and its mandates. Proponents of the Arizona law claim that the federal government has been negligent in its duties to secure the border and enforce federal laws. Mexican border state officials from Texas and Arizona have been pleading with the Obama administration, since he has been office, for federal assistance to secure the border. Their main concern has been the growing activity of violent criminal behavior by drug lords within Mexican border towns. Slowly this violence has been trickling over the border along with tons of illegal drugs. Arizona has especially been a favorite locale for drug cartels to transport illegal drugs into the United States. Thus, if the federal government is not enforcing their own laws to secure the border, then states should have every right to enforce laws to protect their citizens. Besides, why is okay for sanctuary cities such as San Francisco to pass lenient immigration laws, meanwhile other cities and states cannot enforce stricter standards that are in line with federal laws? This is a double standard, and if the courts rule in favor of the federal government then they must also strike down the immigration laws in sanctuary cities. After all, the supremacy clause of the Constitution means that federal law covers the entire United States. This is the DOJ argument.
It is good that the Obama administration filed a suit; it should be up to the courts to decide any issue that is so polarizing. Given the arguments outlined above, I believe the DOJ and the Obama administration will lose this case. This will be another in a long line of legal defeats for Eric Holder and his misguided Department of Justice. It is becoming painfully clear that the DOJ’s mission is to practice nothing more than racial politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment