Arizona On Trial
Posted 07/22/2010 07:19 PM ET
States' Rights: A federal judge hears arguments over whether a state law that mirrors federal law on immigration should take effect next week. Can a state protect its borders when the federal government won't?
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments Thursday on Arizona's SB1070. The law says Arizona police, during the enforcement of other laws, can inquire of an individual's immigration status if they have reason to believe that individual is here illegally.
The new law is scheduled to take effect on July 29, and the U.S. Justice Department is seeking to block its enforcement largely on the flimsy ground that Arizona is usurping federal powers. We have argued that the federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around, and that a state is within its powers to take actions to protect its citizens from potential harm.
The government cannot seriously argue SB1070 amounts to racial profiling, since it mirrors federal law and specifically prohibits targeting individuals on the basis of their ethnicity.
They must first be suspected of some other infraction, and then the police are authorized to do what the federal government has specifically authorized various jurisdictions and trained their officers to do, namely enforce federal immigration law.
Critics of Arizona's enlisting local police to enforce federal immigration law fail to note the existence of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to do just that. The Department of Homeland Security has memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with some 70 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships to enforce federal law. Nine of these jurisdictions are in Arizona, and all of the agreements were inked while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was Arizona governor.
Judge Bolton also heard arguments on whether the Arizona law should be put on hold for now and whether the federal lawsuit should be dismissed. Unfortunately, illegal immigration, a raging drug war in Mexico and an increasing presence by Hezbollah south of the border cannot be put on hold. As the case began, Mexican authorities fought raging gun battles in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas. Nuevo Laredo is among several northern cities under siege from a turf battle between the Gulf cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas gang of hit men. Violence and kidnappings have spilled across our border. The case for border security and immigration enforcement have never been stronger.
A bid by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to block the suit failed 55-43 with five Democrats voting with him and two Republicans siding with the Department of Justice. Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against Arizona and in favor of open borders.
Rhode Island has a policy issued through an executive order identical to Arizona's law. Rhode Island has not been sued, probably because its policy was not enacted in an election cycle. Nine other states have joined in a legal brief supporting Arizona in federal court, and a number of states are considering similar laws.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has declared the Wolverine State the lead state backing the Arizona law in court. It has filed a brief in federal court on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.
"Arizona, Michigan and every other state has the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement. We think so too.
The duty of this administration is to protect the borders of the United States and to enforce our laws, not to wage a legal war against Arizona for doing what the feds have failed to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment