Thursday, July 29, 2010

Ambiguous Law Enforcement

Well, chalk one up for the Left and their insidious drive to destroy America. Yesterday in Phoenix U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction against parts of SB1070, a law approved by the Arizona legislature to protect the state from waves of illegal aliens entering. The Obama Justice Department (DOJ) did not see it that way, however, and sued Arizona to block the law.

Claiming that the law would undermine the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration policy, the DOJ convinced Bolton that the law was unconstitutional. On its face, it sounds like a reasonable argument, but one must look deeper to learn that it is an exercise in hypocrisy of the highest order.

For starters Arizona - under veritable siege along its border with Mexico - instituted its own law precisely because the federal government was derelict in its duty to protect the state from foreign invasions. So for the federal government to sue due to alleged obstruction on Arizona's part is simply ludicrous. What's worse is that Washington, having refused to enforce its own laws, has now insisted that Arizona cease and decist from doing so either.

Perhaps more confounding is the existence of section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act; Delegation of Immigration Authority. Effective in September of 1996, The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) later added section 287(g) in June of 2007. From the website ice.gov:

This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
Many of those contracted and trained were officers in the police forces of Arizona. It wasn't until Obama became president that the supervision of those officers under ICE ceased. One must wonder why, but also question the wisdom of that cessation and the subsequent actions to halt their activities to protect Americans.

An even better question would involve the federal government and its deliberate ignorance of the more obstructive policies of sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with the federal immigration laws, thereby stymieing enforcement, an infraction far worse than what may be considered a form of usurpation by SB1070 yet one that has not garnered a hint of disapproval under Obama, much less a taxpayer-funded lawsuit.

There are currently one hundred and forty-three sanctuary cities across the United States, cities that refuse to question the legality of potential violators of federal immigration law and resist the obligation to turn in those they know are in violation of such. That is 143 cities aiding and abetting criminal elements amongst us with impunity. Yet Arizona gets hauled into court.

In summary, the United States of America has laws that prohibit unlawful entry, but now refuses to criminalize criminal behavior. It punishes those who take up the mantel of justice and rewards those who ignore it through blatant inattentiveness, and chastises legal citizens for protesting against such foolhardiness.

By the time this is all sorted out, most likely in a final showdown before the Supreme Court, it becomes increasingly likely that there will be another shameful slap down at next year's State of the Union address by the president, provided the Justices show up then.

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: