Free Markets, Free People

Supreme Court strikes down most of AZ immigration law, Homeland Security strikes down the rest

I won’t belabor you with a full detailing of how the court ruled yesterday on Arizona’s immigration laws except to say most of it was struck down with the Court supporting the “supremacy clause” as its basis for doing so.

However, it did find for AZ in one part of the law – the requirement to produce identification, if asked, proving citizenship if law enforcement is has a reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

Note the last word.

Illegally”.

You see, that’s the word that is often left off when discussing immigration, as in “the right is anti-immigration”.  Of course that’s a totally inaccurate assertion.  The vast majority of the right is against illegal immigration.  Legal immigrants are both wanted and welcome.

That said, we all know that our immigration system is flat out broken.  It sucks.  It is terrible.   And in this day and time, given advances in the speed and efficiency of communications, there is absolutely no reason that should be the case.  Upgrading and speeding up the system should be a priority.

But that doesn’t change the fact that people who go around that antiquated system and take it upon themselves to enter the US illegally are lawbreakers.

So, to yesterday’s ruling:  Arizona’s law was a result of the federal government’s refusal to enforce existing immigration law.  It was a law born of frustration.  Arizona is a border state.  Non-enforcement was causing strains on the state that for the most part, non-border states didn’t have to deal with.   And, after numerous appeals to the federal government to enforce the laws of the land, the state took the drastic step of passing its own laws that mirrored the federal statutes.

Yesterday the Supreme Court struck most of them down.  I understand and don’t necessarily disagree with the basis of the ruling. I understand the importance of the “supremacy clause”.  But I also understand when it is improperly used – in this case to not enforce existing law.  That is not a choice made by an administration dedicated to the rule of law.   That’s the choice made by one which is driven by an ideological agenda.

To make the point, yesterday after the ruling, Homeland Security, the executive agency that ICE falls under, made it clear that it would not cooperate on section 2 (b) of the AZ law, the section the Supreme Court upheld, effectively nullifying it:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport…

Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person

On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.

Or, more simply, the President has directed his agencies not to enforce the law of the land, a clear violation of his oath of office, but in full compliance with his recent enactment of the “DREAM act” by fiat.

By the way, that raging righty, Mickey Kaus updates us on what the real results of Obama’s decision concerning a certain type of illegal really means:

The maddening details of Obama’s DREAM Decree are becoming clearer. As this CIS report notes, 1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement. 2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.”  It turns out “continuous residence” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless,” says CIS’s Jon Feere. As an illegal immigrant you can go back home abroad for multiple 6-month stints during those five years–but, if precedent holds, in Janet Napolitano’s eyes you will still “know only this country as home.” …

He has a couple of updates that are worth the read as well that show this for the broad attempt at amnesty it really is.

Look … this may indeed be how it all ends up, but this isn’t how it should be done.  There’s a clear, legal and Constitutional path for changing laws we don’t like or think need to be changed … that is if we are a nation of laws. 

Barack Obama seemed to think that was important once:

I believe that we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

Now?  Not so much.

So here we have the nation’s chief law enforcement officer refusing to enforce the law.

His excuse is he’s frustrated with the lack of movement in Congress (of course he’s exerted no leadership or effort to resolve the issue)?

Hey, wait, wasn’t that the same sort frustration Arizona expressed about the administration’s refusal to enforce the law of the land?

So why is Obama’s refusal to enforce the law rewarded while Arizona’s attempt to enforce it isn’t?

Because George Orwell is alive and well and renaming his book “2012”.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

15 Responses to Supreme Court strikes down most of AZ immigration law, Homeland Security strikes down the rest

  • I’m in Maryland and trust me, not being a border state is not exactly the problem.

  • I used to live in Cochise County, and it is a bigger problem there.
    The real problem is that there is nothing even approaching seemlessness in law enforcement.
    Schools will turn a blind eye to an illegal, but will boot out somebody who lives in the next district, etc. etc.

    • VDH hits on this in his “Two Californias” article and some other stuff he has written.

      I know a guy named Randy. He’s a neighbor and a bit older but fit. He was layed off and he’s trying to run a landscape buisness, but he’s bitter towards illegals. He states that a white guy is at a disadvantage in such an undertaking, the preference is for the illegals who work under the table and who usually are ignored by the authorities. I guess if you are white and speak English well, you are expected to work over the table with all your i’s dotted and t’s crossed, if you are brown and barely speak English you are good to go breaking the law.

  • IMNHO the supremacy argument is patent crap.  That applies where there is a conflict of laws, or perhaps some articulable reason a given activity should be unique to the Federal government.
    Neither applies here.  NOTHING Arizona proposed to do was in conflict with Federal law, and there was nothing about the Arizona laws that deprived the Feds of a damn thing.  Nothing.
    Well…except for one thing.  It made it harder for Obama and the Collective to play games with our territorial integrity.

  • The first time an illegal in AZ that the ICE allowed to walk commits a felony- lets say murder- anyone else think Sherriff Joe or Gov Brewer won’t hesitate to make Obama eat shite over it?

    • Nah, they’ll just act like it didn’t happen and invoke executive privilege on it.
       
      What would be entertaining is if ICE nullified Obama’s order by working with Arizona.  Won’t happen, but it’s entertaining to speculate.
       
      Personally if I was Brewer, I’d be looking to see if I could effectively kick ICE out of the State.  I for damn sure would be using every means at my disposal to make their day to day access to their facilities as difficult as humanly possible in a legal way.  There’s not much point in allowing them to benefit from my State’s infrastructure if they aren’t going to assist my State.  What are they THERE for otherwise, they may as well go ‘home’ to Washington, they’re teats on a boar.
       
      You know, pull ICE vehicles over because I thought their tail lights were out, or because they didn’t come to a complete stop at stop signs.   Write em up a warning and tell em to have a nice hour till the next nice officer pulls them over for something inventive.

      • http://www.local2544.org/
        Naw.  BAD idea.  These guys are really TRYING to do their jobs.
        I saw one pissed off Jan Brewer last night.  Even McAnus seems like he’s had all he can stand from the Obami.  He related a story of Sen. Obama torpedoing an immigration proposal I had not heard, but it sure sounded just like Barry.

        • Does “trying to do their jobs” cover following orders telling them not to do their jobs?   You know what I mean.
           
          You’re right though, I was using my imaginary powers for evil purposes.

          • “You’re right though, I was using my imaginary powers for evil purposes.”
            Its scary how fun it is. You have to wonder what would happen if those moral filters ever failed en masse.

          • Haiti…?

          • Haiti?
             
            0.o
             
            I will be a good boy, I promise, I promise.

  • One thing this suggests is that Obama realizes AZ is a lost cause for his campaign. My guess is his internal polling is pretty dismal.

    • I wonder what the internal polling says about pissing off an entire nation?  ‘Cause a lot of us get that we are ALL Arizona now.

  • I contend that Brewer should put the National Guard on the border and forcibly return any illegals that they find. Then Barry and Co. can send in the US Army to disarm their countrymen while allowing an unlawful invasion. Imagine the reaction nationwide when such a thing gets televised. My guess is that tar, feather and pitchfork futures would rise dramatically.