Replies

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.

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.

I would love to see an AZ counter-suit against the Obama regime based on violation of the "equal protection" clause.

Interesting points. Yes, it does seem federal agencies, state department, and the executive branch do want to reserve the right to pick and choose when to apply their enforcement, and how.

It seems that the suit says immigration policy is a tool that the federal agencies use for various purposes whether it's humanitarian relief, getting one illegal alien to turn in more dangerous drug traffickers, terrorists, what-not. They also cite foreign policy implications. Since the Arizona law requires mandatary criminal sanctions, the federal govt contends they cannot "balance" their priorities in carrying out enforcement.

In Section 1 C 1a, pg 26 to 29, the suit also contends SB1070 "WILL reuult in harassment of Lawfully present Aliens and is therefore at odds with Congressional objectives". Since the Arizona law removes LE discretion on whether or not to determine citizenship during an arrest or if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal, they contend that LE will harrass lawful aliens who may or may not have proof of legality on their persons. It also goes on to describe the "constant threat of police inquistion is not limited" to those who committ serious legal offenses but could include people that are jaywalking, riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, passenger in a car, etc. Riiiiggghhhttt.