Posted on 07/27/2010 7:58:54 AM PDT by SmithL
The Obama administration had gone to federal court to kill Arizona's new illegal-immigration law, scheduled to go into effect Thursday. The Department of Justice argues that enforcement of the Arizona law "is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."
Does this mean that if Team Obama prevails over Arizona, San Francisco and other sanctuary cities should prepare to go to court against the feds?
After all, the Obama brief argues that "a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."
In 1989, Ess Eff passed a sanctuary city ordinance which prohibits city employees from working with federal immigration officials, unless required by federal law, state law or warrant.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Illegals leaving Arizona for sanctuary cities bring contagious diseases with them
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2559397/posts
enjoy your disease and higher taxes, Eurofrisco.
I don’t see how Obama can have it both ways, it seems that another way to quell their open borders campaign would be to demand that if the courts rule in their favor that the law equally applies to illegal sanctuary cities.
Why should the Fed do the investigation in California? Doesn’t 834(b) PC make it illegal for a city to be a sanctuary?
Where’s the buffoon Jerry Brown?
Ping!
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.