...not sure if I said this before, but I accidentally (kind of) spent a few minutes on a talk radio show explaining the Arizona immigration law. At the end, the host asked me if I was in favor of it. I was trying to be neutral in my analysis of the law, so when he asked - I answered that I was in favor of it because SOMETHING needs to be done, and if the law was not perfect, it would at least move us towards a solution.
We may not like what we end up with (amnesty, a total breakdown of the border, etc...) but it would also serve to expose those who oppose any form of immigration law. For starters, they show up at protests and marches, and try to block roadways in front of government buildings. But more importantly, it exposes people like Janet Napolitano, who as Governor of Arizona implied to the voters that she believed in strong border protection, and demanded that the federal government do their job. Question is, now that its her job - who does she want to do it?
READ THIS ARTICLE
...or just this part:
"However Arizona law enforcement officers might have responded to any ICE “catch-and-release” directives, the prospect of local officers repeatedly calling up ICE regarding an illegal alien and being told that the federal government had no interest in detaining or deporting him could have created a sizeable public relations problem for the Obama administration. The Arizona law could have made patently manifest what is already clear enough: The federal government has no intention of enforcing the law against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country. Such aliens currently enjoy a de facto amnesty while they wait for the de jure one. The federal government’s policy of non-enforcement towards most illegal aliens was the only occasionally perceptible subtext of the Justice Department’s brief in U.S. v. Arizona. By the time that the brief was converted into Judge Bolton’s ruling, however, that subtext had been stripped out completely. The government’s policy towards legal aliens was the only matter of judicial concern.
One is tempted to conclude that that final total suppression of how Arizona’s intended policy of enforcement interacted with the federal government’s policy of non-enforcement towards illegal aliens was deliberate. Beyond the confines of the courtroom, however, that question is all that the controversy over S.B. 1070 is about: Do we as a country want to enforce the immigration laws or not? It’s time to answer that question."
Arizona getting sued over SB 1070 is a response from an embarrassed Federal government seeking to quell any more ideas of assertion of states rights. The fed in this case, is wrong. I hope Gov. Brewer gets the judgment repealed.
Post a Comment