Posted on 06/23/2010 10:23:25 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[The lawsuit against SB1070 has nothing to do with keeping immigration policy in federal hands.]
The Justice Department is preparing a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, likely to be filed next week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American interviewer last week that the Obama administration opposes the law because “the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” The idea that the administration seeks to uphold federal sovereignty in matters pertaining to immigration is hard to swallow.
U.S. law prohibits public universities from providing in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students, yet ten states currently allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. Numerous “sanctuary cities” deliberately subvert federal immigration policy by preventing local law enforcement and other officials from inquiring as to the immigration status of residents. Some have gone even further by providing undocumented immigrants with local forms of identification.
President Obama immediately voiced opposition to the Arizona law, which enforces federal law at the state level, but has made no rhetorical or legal challenge to state laws that work against federal immigration policy. Such pro-illegal immigrant practices existed well before January 2009, but Obama did not campaign on the need to abolish them for the sake of restoring immigration policy to the federal domain. In fact, when asked in a presidential debate whether he would “allow [sanctuary] cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants,” he refused to condemn sanctuary cities, commenting only briefly on the need for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The notion that immigration policy should be handled at the federal level is a legitimate one, but it is difficult for the Obama administration to oppose Arizona’s law on these grounds since it has not lifted a finger in opposition to state-level policies that favor illegal immigrants. A different agenda is at work here.
Peyton R. Miller is the editor of the Harvard Salient and a Student Free Press Association Intern at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Thought this might interest you.
Something that should be asked in a WH press conference.
corrupt Washington bookmark.
Excellent question.
A rational country would withhold all Federal funds from any “sanctuary city” until it reconsiders.
There is a way to do this, if the people have the will and the Government will honor its own laws.
GMTA!
that’s a good question.
You’d think the arrogant pricks in Congress would be ENRAGED that states would openly defy the laws Congress passes but no, Congress is only enraged when states defy liberal laws.
The question is absurd. It answers itself.
Oh, I don’t know, I think “hat” could be short for a—hat, which would also be appropriate considering your subject. :)
:o/
Ping!
Now you talk about being the polar opposite of the Federal Law this certainly fits the bill. Why isn’t he suing them?
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.