Today, the Guy from Chicago, aided and abetted by his mouthpiece at the Justice Department and his aide at the Department of Homeland Security, publicly announced that the lawsuit they have been threatening to file for nearly two months would, in fact, be filed today. And, surely not wanting to disappoint, they followed through on the threat.
The lawsuit seeks to block the enforcement and implementation of Arizona’s new law of self-defense against the tide of illegal immigrants that the federal government has allowed to flood over the state. That law, SB 1070, is attacked in the suit not on the grounds that it unconstitutionally allows for and encourages “racial profiling” — instead, the feds’ argument is based on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and contends that the Arizona law must be deemed “preempted” by federal immigration law, the latter being supreme over conflicting state laws because the Arizona law purportedly “usurps federal authority.”
Where to start, where to start? So much rhetorical fog, so little time.
First, for this regime to be suing a sovereign state of the United States of America for having the temerity to defend itself against the damage wrought upon it and its citizens by illegal immigration because of federal incompetence in the area is an outrage unto itself. This is all the more evident when viewed against the backdrop of former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s virtually identical calls to then-President George Bush to secure and enforce the border between Arizona and Mexico when she “governed” Arizona. Furthermore, that the actual decision to file the suit was first disclosed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Ecuadorean television during a interview last month, rather than directly to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, merely underscores the classless venality of this administration.
Second, if other states in the Union and other municipalities in those states think the problem is isolated and can be resolved by confining the battle to Arizona, they need to switch from decaf lattés back to fully-leaded Starbucks Jet Fuel. While there may be close to a half million illegal immigrants now living in Arizona, there are between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants scattered throughout the United States. The current problems of Arizona–dumped on its plate by an administration seemingly more intent on placating Mexico and The Guy’s Hah-vahd alumni buddy, Mexico’s Felipe Calderón–are merely small trailer previews of coming attractions for Washington, Colorado, Kansas, Texas (more about that state in a moment), Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, New York, Virginia and all the other states of the Union.
Third, speaking of Texas, while The Guy and DHS Secretary Napolitano were assuring the nation that “there are more boots on the ground at the border than ever before” and that the border “is as secure as it has ever been…,” we hear that only last week the El Paso, Texas City Hall was hit by seven rounds from an AK-47. The shots were apparently errant ones from a gun battle a few blocks away in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico between Mexican police and some bad guys … maybe even drug dealers.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott responded by “firing off” a letter to The Guy demanding that the feds elevate border security to a higher priority and demanding they start doing something on the ground as opposed to merely talking about how “violence is down” and the border “is as secure as it has ever been.” If, by that statement, Napolitano means the border is not secure, just as it has not been secure in the past, then her words make sense. Perverted sense, of course, but sense nonetheless from this administration’s contorted perspective.
Fourth, back to the suit by the feds against Arizona. Memo to Eric Holder: please explain why, if your theory is that the Arizona law is preempted by federal immigration law as being inconsistent and/or that the Arizona law will impede execution of federal immigration policy, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), a federal statute entitled “Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees.” Please explain as well how an Arizona law that essentially incorporates and assimilates into its state code the identical provisions of federal law can be deemed “preempted.”
Preemption theory is relatively straightforward and usually occurs under one or more of three scenarios. First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments preempt state law; second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is preempted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the federal government to occupy exclusively; and third, state law is preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. See English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990).
Given the specific enactment by the Congress (as contrasted with the feckless enforcement of same by this administration) of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), it should be readily apparent that the Arizona law fits none of the “preemption” criteria. So how is it that the Arizona law “usurps federal authority?” Webster’s defines the term “usurp” as meaning “to take or make use of without right.” Again, considering the enactment by Congress of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), the feds’ contentions that Arizona is somehow “usurping” the federal government’s authority to continue its program of mismanaging border security and controlling the flood of illegal immigrants rings a bit hollow. Congress–not to be confused with the Department of Justice–has invited the states to assist in addressing these difficult immigration issues.
Against this backdrop, therefore, the only rational explanation for the DoJ’s decision to file suit and seek to prohibit the enforcement and implementation of the Arizona law is that Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Ms. Napolitano apparently believe that it will impermissibly frustrate and impede the administration’s policies. Those policies seemingly include continuing and expanding the activities of pandering to Mexico and its leaders, pandering to the amnesty for all illegal immigrants and open-borders crowd and perpetuating the inadequate and ineffective “enforcement” measures which have in the past facilitated an exponential increase in the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, with Arizona serving as the doormat. Arizona has simply grown weary of functioning as this administration’s doormat.
And unless other states in what remains of this Union want to become the next doormat, they had better start lining up in support of Arizona rather than indulging in meaningless and ill-informed “boycotts” of the state. When you are under attack and being invaded by foreign forces, it makes no sense at all to boycott those who are on the front lines fighting for you. Unless, of course, you are in favor of the invasion.