Advertisement

City of Brass

City of Brass

Federal government sues State over immigration

Yes, it happened at last. The Justice Department is filing suit against a State in the union, because that state (which did not vote for the sitting President) passed an immigration law that directly undermines the authority of the federal government as enshrined in the US Constitution.

President Obama versus the State of Arizona? Nope. President Bush versus the State of Illinois!


The Bush administration took the gloves off Monday in its fight over immigration enforcement, suing the state of Illinois for banning use of a federal system that checks whether workers are in the United States legally.

Advertisement

The United States of America vs. the State of Illinois is the latest court battle the administration is waging with immigrant advocates and business groups over its crackdown on workers here illegally and the companies that hire them.

Brought by the Justice Department on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, the civil suit is intended to preempt an Illinois state law that bars businesses from using the employee verification program until its databases are faster and more accurate. The suit is also intended to send a clear message to other states and cities about the way they handle immigration enforcement.

Advertisement

The Illinois law “is a direct assault on the federal law,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Monday in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “This is about as bold an anti-enforcement measure as I’ve ever seen.”

In both cases, then and now, the federal government is right to act against an errant state. Whether that state is red or blue, whether it passes restrictions on immigration or loosens them, a state may not dictate immigration policy. Ilegal immigrants immigrate to the United States as a nation, not a specific state, and the states cannot be permitted to enact a patchwork of law. This is a Homeland Security issue as well as a constitutional one and President Obama, and President Bush, are and were right.

Arizona and Illinois may be frustrated, but it is not their call. States’ rights advocates who invoke the Constitution must either accept this or be revealed as stunning hypocrites.

  • http://phelps.donotremove.net Phelps

    There’s a problem with your analogy. The Illinois law purported to circumvent the law passed by Congress, which was being enforced by the Executive. In Arizona, the law is 100% in line with the laws passed by Congress, but is being challenged because it conflicts with the policies of the Executive.
    Going by the law, I think Obama’s going to lose this one. Unless Congress challenges is, he’s stuck. Arizona’s moves in no way interfere with the enforcement of the laws that Congress passed. Separation of powers is a mutha.

  • Randy

    It is obvious that the writer of the article doesn’t know their facts and has a bias to one side. Also, states don’t vote for Presidents, people do.

  • Abambagibus

    Mr. Phelps, may your tape never self-destruct. On the matter of this thread, your particular perspective is closer to the universal than are most.

  • http://timesthattryoursouls.blogspot.com Laurence

    This is a fairly cogent post, however, I believe that you are incorrect in your assertion that AZ is in violation of Federal Law, or the Constituution. AZ bill 1070 (due to offically come into law soon) mirrors the federal immigration law which the federal government has chosen to enforce selectively and inconsistantly. Actaully, AZ is being sued for following federal immigration regulations to the letter of the law. You are amoung the very few who I have been able to find who think this suit is anything more than a ploy to harrass the state of Arizona and has little chance of winning (other than judicial activism, of course).

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment David Hansen

    The author of the above commentary really slipped off the rails. The Arizona law (1070) does not attempt to replace Federal jurisdiction at all. The Federal Govt. is not enforcing imigration so it has to be done by someone

Previous Posts

Ramadan Pearls 05 - objective
As for the men of knowledge of the hereafter, what they mean by the correctness of fasting is its acceptability; and the acceptability of the fast is whether or not it has enabled one to reach one's objective. They understand the objective of ...

posted 7:26:32am Jul. 05, 2015 | read full post »

The Fourth and the First
This evening, just prior to sunrise, members of my mosque in Los Angeles gathered round to raise the flag of the United States of America. Due to fortuitous timing, just as the flag was unfurled, a squadron of planes flew overhead in formation, ...

posted 12:38:00am Jul. 05, 2015 | read full post »

Ramadan Pearls 04 - angels
He who has fasted for Allah, the Glorious and Mighty, and is in the discomfort of heat and struck by thirst, will have his face wiped and be given the good news by a thousand angels whom Allah has entrusted to him until he breaks his fast; at ...

posted 8:16:29am Jul. 03, 2015 | read full post »

ibadat in Ramadan - process as piety
There are a lot of articles written during Ramadan about what Ramadan means, about what we as Muslims should be "getting out" of Ramadan, what the benefits of Ramadan should be. But I think that these sorts of articles miss the point of ibadat. ...

posted 10:20:36am Jul. 02, 2015 | read full post »

Ramadan Pearls 03 - mystery
Know that the goal in fasting is for the veil of appetite and anger to be lifted from the heart's eye so that the heart may see the mystery of the dominion of heaven and earth. (The Easy Roads of Sayf al-Din, as translated by William Chittick ...

posted 8:57:01am Jul. 01, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.