Team Obama Won't Sue Sanctuary Cities – But Will Sue Arizona For Upholding the Law
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 6:24 PM
The Obama Administration announced this week that they won’t sue sanctuary cities…
But, they will sue Arizona for upholding federal immigration law.
the Washington Times reported:
The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona’s new immigration law was singled out because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.
“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is “flimsy justification” for suing the state.
“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law –who fail to comply with the law — is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”
74% of Americans either support Arizona immigration law or say it doesn’t go far enough.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 89 Comments
NeoKong commented:
For somebody who is supposed to be smart he ain’t so sharp.
Nobody supports him on this.
He is handing the GOP the House on a silver platter.
Why doesn’t he just get it over with and try to sue Major League Baseball and McDonalds too.
It couldn’t make it any worse for Democrats.
IN MEMORY OF MARY JO commented:
AMERICANS KILLED due to the INVASION – http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp and http://www.voiac.org
Corporal Vere commented:
That maqkes sense.
Contratry to federal government policy, Arizona (and Madison, WI and RI too) is protecting its citizens and preserving their way of life, in peace and security.
The sanctuary cities share Obama/Holder/Pelosi/Reid goals: destroying our country and our way of life.
No Man commented:
Obama is Katrina.
No!
He’s doing the best he can to wreck the entire USA!!!
Indoctrinate U commented:
Another victim of a Sanctuary City – http://www.isupportjamielslaw.com
John Doe commented:
This so-called prez is the most unlawful and hate-filled man ever to occupy the oval office. He is a complete and total embarrassment to America and everything it stands for. His lackey for AG is as pathetic as he is and both need to be run out of dc asap. This admin. has spent more time, effort and money going after American citizens than any terrorists or law breakers.
bg commented:
++
via TRBO
And if you think it can’t get worse, it does.
[Kouri also writes Judicial Watch has learned that John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), “circulated an internal memo ordering officers not to arrest a broad
range of illegal aliens he deems immune from ‘mandatory detention.’”
And the reason why is going to make your head explode. Kouri reports that ICE, an agency of Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security, has “limited resources” and “must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel and detention space.”
What? No money to detain illegal immigrants?
Not even long enough to arrange for deportation?]
Ann Coulter
New Black Panthers, You’re Free To Go — Not So Fast, Arizona
[So a state can't start issuing or revoking
visas, but that's about all it can't do.
Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the conditions of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."
Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)
So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation
of aliens.
On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.
Unless, of course, Obama is right and it's a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice's lawsuit.]
==
Just_Saying commented:
““There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law”
Guess the boneheads in Obummer’s administration still haven’t read the Arizona law, which merely mirrors the federal law (hence, does not interfere with federal law).
There is a big difference — but Obummer’s DOJ has the logic turned upside down.
HOMELAND INSECURITY commented:
And the INVA$ION continues… http://www.BorderInvasionPics.com
Chisum commented:
Video: Panicky Democrats now going on Fox to prove they oppose Obama’s lawsuit against Arizona
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/14/video-panicky-democrats-now-going-on-fox-to-prove-they-oppose-obamas-lawsuit-against-arizona/
befuddled commented:
news flash: obama’s justice administration and the naacp are to file a suit against cleveland cavaliers owner for slavery. apparently, making a fuss about your franchise athlete leaving your team after you shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars on the star athlete, his family, and even his close friends is akin to slavery.
during the 1860′s, slave owners had become so incensed that their slaves had the gall to leave the plantation, even though these slaves were getting paid millions of dollars, living a life of pampered decadence, and having all their close relatives and friends taken care of in a similar manner. once the news about all the angry white slave owners hit the newspapers, northerners could no longer contain themselves. led by the newly elected president, lincoln led the war effort of North against South: the civil war.
i agree with the naacp, if these “white” slave owners don’t get their act together, history is bound to repeat itself. i place my faith in obama.
bg commented:
++
Chisum @ 7:30 pm #10
not funny, but i can’t help lmbo anyways..
==
pamlinson commented:
That’s our half cracker president for ya.
militant conservative commented:
Got news for you bloggers. My neighbor named Bob is life long Democrat, like many I meet in my travels. He is adamant against this president and his agenda. HE voted FOR OBAMA asnd he is white. Gee the bloom is off of the rose. I know many other black and white Americans that have seen the error of their ways. They got snookered, lied to, and they are pissed off. This election cycle is going to be history in the making 50 seats in the house and 5 to 6 in the senate. Dem’s in the back seat and wanting to hang a NOTUS for the outcome. LOL Socialism has run its course, the adults are about to come home and stop the stupid house party and restore order to the country. Work is rewarded and sloth is not. get over it welfare leaches. Get a J.O.B. and gain your respect. Have fun supporting the affirmative action candidate that has no idea how to create jobs in the real world. I know but hey I’m not a snot nosed black wanna be leader. I know what works, from experiance and wisdom of history. powder is dry.
Lance commented:
It’s a lack of enforcement that permits this to go on. The whole purpose of declaring a sanctuary city is to defy the nation’s law! Otherwise there would be no point!!!
This administration doesn’t like the written law, our Constitution, but prefers arbitrary dictates. Because in his mind any means justifies the end. Every conscious citizen should be thinking about just what those means might be. It’s too late when they’re obvious.
Valerie commented:
Did anybody ask how the administration reached the conclusion that this Arizona law, which mirrors Federal law, “actively interferes with federal law”?
jainphx commented:
Someone please wake me up in Nov. I just can’t take much more of this Bulls@#t. The laws mean nothing anymore, making for the leftist wet dream, do what you want to who you want, and the taxes will pay the way.
Sandy commented:
The Good News is that Arizona will be joined by 9 other states who are also against illegal immigration. Gov. Brewer has proven to be on the right side of this issue and watching while the public is leaving Obama faster then flies on a cheap suit.
Sandy commented:
militant conservative — Amen bro. Dick Morris is saying 11 seats in the Senate. I hope he’s right.
Chisum commented:
Official – Obama’s a Failure
“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2010/07/13/official-obamas-a-failure/
Robert commented:
I hope that Arizona is able to bring some of these dissonant points out in the trial. We have:
1. The federal government not upholding its own laws and failing to secure the border. If it wants to claim jurisdiction it has to have exercised its prerogative. Since it has not, then the federal government has lost its claim to sole jurisdiction.
2. The federal government stating that hikers in the northwest who cross the border without process are in violation. This concept would surely hold for extra-nationals who are crossing the southern border into the country, creating a self-stated duty to mitigate the situation.
3. The specific crimes and instances of physical danger that Arizonans are experiencing as the result of the federal government’s malfeasance. Unlike the federal government which is concerned with a mere legality, the citizens of Arizona are experiencing real danger and suffering, ranging from financial obligation significant in its own right, to injury and death.
We also have the situation escalating as violence on the southern side of the border is having consequences in American territory, and we have specific threats from abroad being made to American citizens.
4. The legal, moral and logical inconsistency of the federal government suing for a law that closely mirrors federal law, and not suing localities that act contrary to federal law. The convoluted explanation in this blog post misstates that Arizona’s “immigration policy .. actively interferes with federal law” which is not true, absurd, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone considering this issue.
5. It could be argued that it is indeed the federal government that is acting in opposition to existing federal law by refusing to secure the border and enforce immigration law. It may be possible to detail many instances numbering into many thousands where this holds true.
6. It may be possible to subpoena internal information whereby the federal government has deliberated its duty in upholding and enforcing immigration law, thus showing possible politicization of the legal process in this area of legal jurisprudence as we have seen in certain civil rights cases, thereby further invalidating the position of the federal government in this case.
If I were the judge in this case, I would call the parties to chamber, and ask the federal legal team if it was sure that it wanted to proceed with this case, noting that it did not seem to have met basic requirements for initiating a coherent lawsuit. I would further state that my court was no place to conduct political grandstanding that had no basis in legal integrity.
Robert commented:
Furthermore, a complaint must be registered detailing the disparity in resources that the respective parties have in litigating this case.
The federal government has the enforced participation of the nation at large, a captive population which has no choice in its confiscated earnings being misappropriated for this legal wild goose chase, while the state of Arizona is restricted in its ability to draw on resources.
Jim commented:
This is grounds for criminal action. Osama Obama is going to busy in early January, 2013 writing pardons for all the criminal activity his minions are doing.
eaglewingz08 commented:
I see, so the dems believe that sanctuary cities are an exercise of tenth amendment privileges that does not interfere with federal enforcement.
What a crock.
Finncrisp commented:
We have entered the era of law enforcement double speak. Enforcing Federal law at the state level is now interfering with the Feds. This used to be called cooperation. The Sanctuary cities disable enforcement of Federal law. This used to be called lawlessness.
The party of the Jacka$$ is alive and well is making a horse’s A$$ out of the Constitution. Pathetic.
Hangtown Bob commented:
Holder’s office says ““There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law.”
This seems to give states the green light to ignore ANY Federal mandates that are either unfunded or under-funded. This can be the way that states can get out of their precarious financial situations.
Sojourner commented:
..’Landmark Legal Foundation has filed a detailed Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief in support of the State of Arizona and its recently enacted law requiring suspected illegal aliens to produce proof of their legal immigration status, in accorda:’
..Mark Levin’s LLF Amicus Brief for Arizona:
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/AZ%20Brief%20Only.pdf
bg commented:
++
Sojourner @ 10:25 am #35
thumbsup!!
==