July 8, 2010

A borderline case against the immigration law in Arizona - CSMonitor.com

A borderline case against the immigration law in Arizona - CSMonitor.com

TeamObama's court fight against Arizona's immigration status validity check law is obviously grounded in politics, not a legitimate and essential requirement to enforce existing federal laws. Stronger border security is favored by a vast majority of Americans and in recent polls nearly 70% support the Arizona law. Border security has been sadly neglected by TeamObama and catering to Hispanic voters is the obvious reason for the legal battle.
"...Arizona was also careful to anchor its statute in federal law, aiming to complement Washington’s efforts rather than work against them. No new requirements, for example, are imposed on aliens. (The Justice Department decided not to make a federal case out of concerns about possible racial profiling by Arizona police.)
The law, SB 1070, also does not preempt the federal role of defining the admission, authorization, or deportation of aliens. In fact, it builds on Supreme Court rulings that have long recognized the rights of states to discourage illegal immigration.
Rather than see the Arizona law as an obstacle to better enforcement, Obama must start to work better with the states as partners. As the often-quoted federal judge Learned Hand once wrote, “it would be unreasonable to suppose that [the federal government’s] purpose was to deny itself any help that the states may allow.”
Post a Comment