Investors Business Daily
The Law: If there's any doubt the Supreme
Court upheld the most substantial elements of Arizona's law to enforce U.S.
immigration law, take a look at the scorched-earth response from the Obama
administration to punish the state.
The Supreme Court voted 8-0 Monday to uphold a key
provision of Arizona's S.B. 1070 that requires state troopers to check the
immigration status of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally after
they've been caught committing other crimes.
That acknowledges the reality that the unlicensed
man barreling down a desert highway with 40 people sweltering in his van might
just be doing more than driving too fast, and that the bearded man caught with
bomb-making tools and al-Qaida literature in his car might have more than
chemistry on his agenda.
Three other provisions of the Arizona law were
thrown out by the court, thereby leaving illegals the "right" to solicit day
jobs on public streets, the "right" to not carry the same identification they
are required to carry in their home countries and the "right" to not be deported
after officers suspect them of crimes here.
But after the Obama administration and its media
allies crowed that the court ruling was a win, their fury over their loss on the
one provision became obvious.
The vindictive, disproportionate response effectively isolates the state in terms of being far more stringent than anything the administration has inflicted on Burma, North Korea or Iran.
Federal authorities will no longer take phone calls from Arizona officers making immigration inquiries about suspected illegals picked up in the course of committing crimes, perhaps some quite spectacular ones.
Instead, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service "will tell the local police to release the person," the Washington Times reports. That's de facto amnesty to yet another group of criminal illegals, done this time as a means of punishing Arizona for its insolent desire to enforce federal law.
It goes to show that the court ruling was never a question of federal law trumping state law, as the administration has spun its argument in court, but of election-year pandering for the Latino vote.
The whole federal conflict with Arizona has come about not because Arizona wanted to make its own laws contradicting federal law, but because it wanted to enforce federal laws itself.
What does it say about the Obama administration's priorities that it effectively scraps its sworn pledge to uphold the law, usurps the legislative function by ignoring federal laws, punishes those who comply and puts its own re-election first?
No comments:
Post a Comment