Posted on 07/22/2010 9:35:38 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
Frustrated at the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law, a Republican congressman introduced a bill demanding that the attorney general also take action against so-called "sanctuary cities," which discourage immigration enforcement.
Rep. Duncan Hunter's bill is the latest step as lawmakers seek to inject themselves into the debate and force their colleagues to take a stand on the contentious Arizona law. One of those moves failed Wednesday when Republicans tried, but failed, to have the Senate vote on blocking the government's lawsuit against Arizona.
Mr. Hunter's bill, for which he started soliciting co-sponsors Wednesday, would stop the Justice Department from pursuing its lawsuit against Arizona until Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. submits a plan to Congress outlining how he would bring sanctuary cities into compliance with federal law.
A majority of voters tell pollsters they back Arizona's law, and Mr. Hunter said the government overstepped its bounds by singling out a state he says is only trying to help federal authorities meet their responsibility to enforce the country's borders.
"The federal government is being inconsistent," said the lawmaker, whose district includes San Diego and other areas just north of the California-Mexico border. "They're saying we don't want a patchwork of laws, and that's why they're suing Arizona, but at the same time they allow sanctuary cities ... to passively impede federal law."
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Holder, did not respond to a request seeking comment Wednesday. But in a statement to The Washington Times last week, Ms. Schmaler said the Arizona law and sanctuary ordinances are not the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
good one!
if a state enforcing federal law is usurping federal authority then refusing to allow enforcement of it must be bad too
Actually, Sanctuary Cities by default are violating USC 8 sec. 1324.
Yep. They are openly undermining federal law and US policy, in clear violation of the Supremacy Clause. Not only is there a civil case to be made against the cities, there's a criminal case to be made against the executives of those cities, either Mayors or City Managers, depending on the form of government.
The Federal Government needs to be reminded that, according to the Constitution, they only exist at the will of the States.
D. H. Ping.
Which is federal law and up to the federal government to enforce. State's cannot be made to enforce federal law, that goes back to the 1842 Prigg v Pennsylvania decision.
Here's a question, How come Sharon Angle isnt running commercials against Harry Reid citing EVERY Republican Senate bill he blocks from coming to a vote? Harry Reid should not be up in the polls compared to her.
“Here’s a question, How come Sharon Angle isnt running commercials against Harry Reid citing EVERY Republican Senate bill he blocks from coming to a vote? Harry Reid should not be up in the polls compared to her.”
That is why she may lose, you can’t play nice with these complete communist bastards.
“...Harry Reid should not be up in the polls compared to her.”
Great point. She needs to pounce on this- and similar popular issues in her favor.
I would love to see someone ask Holder: If sanctuary cities that seek to negate federal law are alright in regards to federal immigration laws then would you say that we also could have sanctuary cities in regards to federal pollution or civil rights laws as well?
Thanks for the PING. At least one guy takes this stuff seriously.
Possibly a point Arizona can use in its defense.
Ping!
Duncan Hunter is pushing...
That's right. The feds couldn't sue the cities for not rounding up the illegals. However, some of these sanctuary cities go far beyond ignoring the immigration status of people - people they perhaps arrest on unrelated charges, or people that they provide social service to.
Some of these cities actually create social programs that directly target illegals and specifically facilitate (perhaps enable is a better word) them continuing to be in the country illegally. That is acting as an accessory after the fact.
It's one thing to for states to ignore the immigration status, it's quite another to specifically help them because they're illegal.
” At least one guy takes this stuff seriously.”
Yes, at least. John McCain didn’t even bother to sign on to the Amicus Brief that only 5 other senators signed along with 76 from the house.
Here is the list of signers. What a shock.....NO JOHN McCain!
The Congressional amicus brief is posted here at the House Judiciary Republicans’ website.
The following Members of the House and Senate have signed onto the brief:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38184
No AuntB, the SHOCK would have been if he did sign on, but then again, you knew that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.