Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has joined eight other Attorney Generals in offering legal support for what he described as Arizona’s “common-sense immigration reform law.”
“Every state, including Nebraska, has the authority to enforce federal immigration laws,” Bruning said Thursday in a prepared statement. “Ensuring the tradition of cooperative enforcement by both state and federal officials is essential.”
The Arizona law directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.
“Under the current situation, the states have lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law,” said the statement from the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office.
On July, 6, 2010, the federal government’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona. The DOJ complaint has three causes of action: the supremacy clause, preemption, and the [dormant] commerce clause. The primary complaint is one of preemption. The DOJ says that federal law preempts state law based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause. In other words, this is a federal matter, and the state of Arizona has no Constitutional authority to supersede federal law in this matter.
In a laughably inconsistent move, the DOJ said that they will not sue “so called” sanctuary cities a week later.
A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”
“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 (Federal) immigration law says: “The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors (the 1996) federal law — it does not ‘interfere’ with it,” he said.
The latest Rasmussen poll says that 61% of the American public favor a law similar to Arizona’s in their state, and anywhere from 70-73% of Arizonans favor the law in their state.
It should be noted that we do not live in a direct democracy. A majority of the people do not vote on inititatives or referendums on a federal level, for example. The United States is best termed a Representative Republic. We elect our representatives based on the fact that we believe they will represent our views when they sit in our various seats of leadership. Having said that, we must recognize that there will be some variance between our views and our representative’s views, but where do we draw the line in this variance?
A representative will tell you that there are times when they will vote against their constituent’s wishes when they deem a bill to be in the best interests of the nation. Is this the view of our representatives in the Obama administration? Do they genuinely believe that suing Arizona and thereby delaying (or thwarting) the state’s illegal immigration law to be the in the best interests of the republic, or are they acting in the best interests of Democrats?
Liberals made questioning motives a part-time job during the Bush administration. In an effort to be consistent, we must then question the motives of the Obama Administration. Hispanics voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election by a 67% to 31% margin. Hispanics are currently registered Democrat over Republican by a margin of 57% to 23%. Would the Obama administration’s DOJ still be lax in its attempts to curb illegal immigration if the poll numbers on Hispanics were reversed? If one argues that the DOJ and the administration genuinely believe that legalizing illegal citizens by way of amnesty is the right thing to do, regardless of the poll numbers, one has to wonder if they would take that belief a step further to a lawsuit against a state if the poll numbers were reversed.