Further reading of the suit seems to say that Arizona’s new law, which they cite as generally “attrition through enforcement”, ignores the objectives of the federal immigration system, which they say primarily is the “arrest and detention of those aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety.” (Reading pages 15 through 22)
So, in other words, since Arizona actually DOESN’T discriminate between illegal aliens, the suit says DHS, DOJ, and the executive branch is hindered in their right TO discriminate based on the value, danger, humanitarian need of specific illegals......or at least that’s the why I interpreted it.
Under Section 1. B. Point 3, pgs 22 to 25, the suit also claims that Arizona’s law also “interferes with US foreign policy objectives”. It states thet “immigration policy is intimately commenced with US foreign affairs and diplomacy”. In fact, the suit claims that merely passing this law, has already “resulted in numerous, specific, and serious diplomatic reactions that threaten multiple United States interests”.
WoW....wonder what those “interests” are?
Great point and post.
Using some of your post here is how I am seeing this issue:
What is really ironic here is that for weeks on end the democrats cried that this law was discriminatory but now they are filing a lawsuit claiming that the federal government is being denied their exclusive right to discriminate on how the federal immigration laws are enforced.
The DOJ seems to say that Arizona’s new law, which they cite as generally “attrition through enforcement”, ignores the objectives of the federal immigration system, which they say primarily is the “arrest and detention of those aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety.” (Reading pages 15 through 22)
So, in other words, since Arizona law actually DOESN’T conform to federal discrimination between illegal aliens, the suit says DHS, DOJ, and the executive branch is hindered in their exclusive right TO discriminate based on the value, danger, humanitarian need of specific illegals.
So now they are arguing that it is the federal government ONLY that gets to pick and choose who the law applies to? That the federal government CAN discriminate instead of applying the law EQUALLY to ALL?
I think that the Obama DoJ has a 14th Amendment problem regarding this suit bigtime. They are trying to argue for a right to discriminate in regards to who, where and when the law applies. This type of government endorsed bigotry was outlawed long ago and now the democrats are trying to bring it back.
How would democrats react if this type of interpretation of the Supremacy clause applied to other federal laws? Like laws that give the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over certain land and water within the States? Would they allow a ruling party and Executive branch to pick and choose where and when federal laws designed to protect water and land should be ignored by the federal government? Would they allow sanctuary cities for polluters? And then attack a State for trying to uphold federal law equally for all?
I highly doubt it. This lawsuit is doomed to fail and AZ law will be upheld. This argument for a Supreme right of the federal government to discriminate as to where, when and to whom the law applies is ridiculous.