-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Special Report
Obama Takes on Arizona
The Supreme Court will weigh in on the administration’s least favorite immigration law.
Health care reform isn’t the only major policy battle the Obama administration will fight before the Supreme Court. The justices will also hear a case in which the Obama Justice Department asks them to overturn Arizona’s SB 1070, a controversial law empowering state and local police to detain suspected illegal immigrants in the course of their normal work.
Controversial in certain circles, that is. The law rescued Gov. Jan Brewer’s reelection campaign and retains 2-1 support in recent Arizona polls. There have been numerous copycat bills in state legislatures across the country and the most successful have attracted Obama administration lawsuits of their own.
Russell Pearce has been down this road before. The former Arizona state senate president is the architect of SB 1070 and other immigration control measures — including a law requiring businesses to use the E-Verify system to check the legal status of their workers, which also ended up before the Supreme Court.
“We won 5 to 3 on the E-Verify case,” Pearce says. “The same issues and constitutional principles are at stake here. I expect we’ll win 5 to 3 again.” (Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, recused herself in the last case and will do so again in the forthcoming one.) Indeed, the Supreme Court found that Arizona immigration law fell “well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States.”
Pearce was recalled in November, but notes that “amnesty, the DREAM Act, and open borders” were all downplayed in the race. The Republican who replaced him, Jerry Lewis, described SB 1070 as “a good start.”
Oddly, the case comes as the Obama administration touts record deportations of illegal immigrants. Most of the spike in removals comes from illegal aliens who committed other crimes, many of whom were already in state or local custody. So why doesn’t the administration support SB 1070?
Many of the illegal immigrants Arizona would refer to the feds for deportation are not in line with the administration’s enforcement priorities. Arizona lawmakers are seeking to reduce the overall illegal population in the state by attrition through enforcement. The Obama immigration authorities want to remove only criminal aliens, in part to look tough enough to build support for renewed “comprehensive immigration reform.”
It is not clear that this difference in policy priorities is sufficient to render SB 1070 an unconstitutional encroachment on legitimately federal prerogatives. To paraphrase the late Sonny Bono, illegal immigration remains illegal. Arizonans argue they are just doing the job Washington won’t do, but the decision to deport remains the federal government’s.
As if to prove that politics makes for strange bedfellows, some of the president’s liberal supporters are troubled by the number of deportations. They are opting out of the Secure Communities Program, which was designed by George W. Bush’s administration after it became clear amnesty would be politically impossible if there wasn’t some effort to enforce the law.
Similarly, some Republican presidential candidates seem to be reluctant to embrace attrition through enforcement. Pearce says the GOP field is “weak” overall on illegal immigration. “I was troubled by Newt Gingrich’s recent comments,” Pearce says of Gingrich’s proposed guest-worker program, though he notes the former House speaker is “very bright.” Pearce considers Michele Bachmann the strongest candidate on immigration enforcement. He was also pleased with his conversations on the subject with Herman Cain, who has since dropped out, and Mitt Romney.
Long before a Republican nominee faces Obama, the Supreme Court will once again weigh in on Arizona and illegal immigration. But the president, who has often sought to play both sides of the amnesty debate against each other, has already made his position crystal clear.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/13/obama-takes-on-arizona
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
VonMisesJr| 12.13.11 @ 9:29AM
Salazar and Napolitano changed the recommendation of a drilling report and then ignored Judge Feldman's reversal of the drilling moratorium. What makes anyone think the regime will abide by this ruling.
If Brewer and AZ win, they will be left on their own to pay for and enforce illegal immigration.
TW in SC| 12.13.11 @ 11:08AM
Kind of a moot argument, though I'm not criticizing your intent. If AZ is "left on their own" how does it differ from what they are having to do right now? The FedGov isn't lifting a finger to help with illegal immigration laws, all under the purview of Eric (the Red) Holder. By "making it official" then AZ is free and clear to thumb its nose at FedGov and protect the citizens of that state without interference.
However, the SupCt should and must decide that the laws AZ has devised are consistent with federal law and do not, in any way, usurp or supersede them. But remember, we live in "Wonk-ville" where rather than decide in a black-and-white way, the SupCt will most likely come up with a ruling where everyone loses.
Shamus| 12.13.11 @ 9:35AM
Democrats favor illegal immigration because they can use it to justify expansion of the welfare state. This is an extremely foolish policy, but Democrats are ideologically committed to it.
Negro X| 12.13.11 @ 9:40AM
Illegal aliens must deported, those who harbor them must be arrested. The zeituni leech and omar the alcoholic should be first.
Al Adab| 12.13.11 @ 10:09AM
Here is the perfect example of the federal government, not only failing to perform its obligated duty under the enumerated powers, but activly refusing to perform the duty for which it was created. It is opposing the efforts of the states to protect themselves from invasion while refusing to perform that uty.
The states delegated that power to the federal government at its created but certainly retain the power to act when faced with federal refusal. When Pancho Villa invaded New Mexico, Wilson sent the army INTO Mexico after him. What has this administration done in the face of similar acts by Mexican bandits? The states have every right to act on their own behalf and the Supreme Court cannot interfer or eliminate that power of the states. Whatever the Court may rule, the States clearly retain that authority and should act accordingly.
Peppermint Tea| 12.13.11 @ 10:15AM
If the Supremes believe we are a nation of laws, they should rule if the state and federal laws are compatible, not whether the AZ law goes against a federal bureaucrat.
Tom B| 12.13.11 @ 10:25AM
You have the title of the article backwards!!!!!
VonMisesJr| 12.13.11 @ 10:31AM
Great point Tom.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 11:43AM
AZ never voted for any Democrat President, and that might anger Obama, and that's why he unleashed his DOJ, suing AZ over its legit immigration law.
DOJ also sued AL and SC over similar immigration law.
Under the 10th Amendment of the US constitution, states have rights to enact their own laws including issues like immigration.
Obama Administration is an albeit failure when it comes to crack down on illegals and securing the border.
AZ, Al, and SC did not violate the constitution.
Suing those states alleged constitutional violations is nothing but pure politics.
Shame on Obama and his DOJ.
I hope the SC will throw out the law suit filed by the Obama's DOJ and reinstate the immigration laws in AZ, AL, and SC.
The clock is ticking, and we must act now.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 12:02PM
The former great/longtime L.A. Dodger manager Tommy Lasorda once [after thoughtful consideration] replied to a question of whether or not Pete Rose [after his gambling activities] should be allowed admittance into baseball's HOF, by proclaiming that RULES ARE RULES!!!!!!!!!!
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 12:10PM
If rules are rules, then DOJ should never sue AZ, Al, and SC. It's a clear violation of state's sovereignty and the constitution.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 10:08PM
That was my [and Lasorda's]point exactly, and yes RULES ARE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
Len| 12.13.11 @ 12:26PM
A good article from the Tenth Amendment Center showing the clear rights of the states to protect their borders...........
http://tenthamendmentcenter.co.....r-borders/
wolflen| 12.13.11 @ 1:37PM
it should be obvious that the feds have no intention of enforcing current immigration laws
when they are reformed. and they will be, open borders will be the norm..just as we now have mexician trucks driving on all US highways .. AZ et all will be overruled, little wonder, just the slight chance the feds are called racist is going to be too much of a chance..the inflated "deportation" numbers are reminiscent of the current unemployment numbers..they are used for political ends and have nothing to do with jobs or people who don't have them..yes it is what we all feel but don't want to admit..the "feds"don't care about the US..they are giving away the store and the value of being citizen of this country is on a downward scale..and you can be one just by crossing its borders..legal or not.
Al Adab| 12.13.11 @ 2:59PM
Arizona should make it very clear that, no matter what the court may decide, the State will continue to use its own resources to defend itself from invasion. How many Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis etc. have been intercepted trying to cross the border? They are not trying to come and get "jobs Americans won't do".
Such action by the State would leave the feds two options: cut off federal funding to the State i.e.blackmail; or send the tanks to prevent Arizona from defending itself. Would they really do that? This is quite likely THE constitutional issue of our time. Do we really believe that when the states delegated certain powers to the fed, that they gave up the authority to exercise those same powers on their own behalf?
Cicero| 12.13.11 @ 4:14PM
It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the Feds cut off all fed money to Arizona. I believe that Arizona is one of the states that sends more money to Washington than it gets from Washington. If the feds don't send the money to Ariz, Arizona could just not send any money to the feds. If this were to be practiced across the country, it seems that the federal beaurocracy would be somewhat starved for money. It might even shrink in size, like any tumor deprived of blood.
Mike 3/505| 12.13.11 @ 5:09PM
In order for that to work, we have to repeal any and all laws/regulations that allow the federal government to grab personal, business and state bank accounts. As it stands right now, in any dispute with the Feds, they can take your money up front and you have to fight a court battle to get it back...Little if any due process there, but it gives them huge amounts of control.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.11 @ 5:16PM
Hey folks...check out the picture:
"GET YOUR HANDS OFF ME, pRESIDENT OBAMA! I'LL SUE YOUR ASS FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT!"
chuck| 12.13.11 @ 9:20PM
That's no big deal. Besides, I've heard Obama likes being the catcher with the boys.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.11 @ 5:18PM
Heh! Governor Perry would knock Obama's block off if he put his hands on HIM!
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.13.11 @ 7:31PM
Hear! Hear! Ken!
Con Chef (NB) | 12.13.11 @ 8:55PM
This is a dicey issue for me, personally. After 8 years in professional high end kitchens, I can say that I've worked with FAR more illegals than legals (although there were 3 I can think of, off hand). With rare exception, these guys were the bussers, prep cooks & dishwashers that made the place run. Some of them, who were proficient in English, ran food out to tables & were able to describe, with clarity, what it was they were serving. Each one of these guys had 2 or 3 "yobs" (as they would say). They all worked at restaurants & busted their asses. And I dare say they could work anyone I knew at the time into the dirt.
One of the guys who cooked with me, Armando, started out as a dishwasher. High end kitchens, being one of the only meritocracies left in this world besides the military, are a place where people can move up, & Armando proved his mettle as a prep cook & then filled in for someone when they were sick one day. After that, he was part of our crew. On Armando's arm was a jailhouse tat that read "vato loco." I'm no idiot. My Mom grew up in Santa Monica/LA. I know that Mexican guys don't get jailhouse looking tats saying "vato loco" because they wanna LOOK like tough guys.
Because I spoke enough Spanish that I could converse with Armando & the rest of my "primos" (cousins, I called them), I was able to get to know them a little better than the rest of the guys in my kitchen. And I KNEW, that whatever Armando had done was no longer the person he was. Here was a guy who showed up to EACH of his 3 jobs (I knew he had 2 others because I used to go there & party on my nights off & see him working the closing shift), worked his ASS off, & sent money home to Mexico to his wife & kid. He may have been "vato loco" in Mexico, but he was just another ass busting restaurant grunt like me here in Pittsburgh.
Its a tough call for me when I've worked with guys like Armando. Guys I knew could still work their tails off & never complain. You'd never hear "no, Chef" from him. At least I never had him say that to me, even once I became a sous chef. The guy was like one of Chesty Puller's Marines: ready to follow me through hell because I'd come up with him & earned his respect.
I agree with what Marco Rubio says. Let's make the LEGAL immigration process better. Let's make it workable in the age of terrorism. Let's let guys like Armando come in LEGALLY. By making the LEGAL process better, we can reduce the ILLEGAL immigration, in conjunction with a sealed border (hell, a wall works for Israel) & deportations for all those who slip through. E-Verify is a joke when any illegal fresh out of the van can go to the corner bodega & buy a social security number. Biometric IDs for migrant workers would help solve this (and the ACLU can get bent if they wanna complain about it). Acquisition of these cards would be subject to the same standards as new immigration policies. Physicals would be required (since illegals have brought in more TB than Doc Holliday), backgrounds confirmed, etc. The only problem with this is the MEXICAN gov't. To me, they're not currently a gov't. we can trust to hand over the complete files on every one of their citizens. Herein lies the rub.
chuck| 12.13.11 @ 9:18PM
I agree completely, CC. The Mexicans I've known, worked with, and yes, even worked FOR me, have been some of the hardest working, most gracious men I've ever known. How many "gringos" thank you at the end of the day for giving them work?
Con Chef (NB) | 12.13.11 @ 9:52PM
None at all, brother.
Vern Crisler | 12.13.11 @ 9:36PM
I'm a bit conflicted on this case. The interesting question is whether the federal government is alone responsible for immigration enforcement or whether the states have a 10th amendment right to enforce. It's a question about federalism.
My view is that immigration is a national issue (like war) and is therefore the responsibility of the federal government, not the state governments.
However, as many have pointed out, even granting federalism and the rights of national sovereignty, the major issue is whether Congress has preempted the field. Has Congress excluded complementary action on the part of the states with respect to immigration enforcement? Or does it allow dual exercise of enforcement?
The Supreme Court has an interesting case to decide, no matter the outcome. Even if Arizona loses, however, it means the federal government has to step up and do its job, as Gov. Brewer likes to say. If the states are excluded, then all the pressure is on the federal government.
Of course, Obama has no interest in the issue of federalism. He just wants to continue to pander to the Hispanic vote.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.13.11 @ 10:10PM
You're right. He has no interest in federalism. If he had HIS way, our nation would have fuedalism, with vassals of his chosing dictating to the serfs who work their land, not only their own laws, but the law of the "king," MaoBama.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 10:17PM
This editorial's point should be that shamefully the taxpayer-voters of this country facilitated this bullying-domination by the federal government when it voted STUPIDLY on 11/4/08. Elections have consequences, and none more so than that one, since we permitted the most radical, partisaned, corrupt group of Democrat politicians to assume control of this country unnecessarily. This happened because of the collective disgust with the longetivity of the ME wars, and the country's propagandized guilt over slavery [and the constant drumbeat of racism, disenfranchisement, discrimination, gentrification etc to cloud our mental ability to rationally think straight]. Will we allow it to happen a second time on 11/4/12??????????????
POST American| 12.13.11 @ 10:26PM
"Jefferson warned you time and again,
when you see the government changing hands,
yet 'the age-enda' remains unchanged, even
unmentioned, you ARE living under TYRANNY."
---The 'continuity of age-enda' is nowhere
more clearly visible than the deliberate
NO SHOW of our last 4 administrations
on the illegal immigration disaster, and the
case of catastrophic, Globalist collapsed Mexico.
RETRO-active IMPEACHMENT of our
last 4 administrations---and rapid dis-mantling,
auditing, disclosure and prosecution
of the deadly sinister, ultra-rich, sovereignty
destroying, culture corrupting, TAX FREE
'chair-IT-Abel' foundations.
-------------THERE IS NO MORE TIME--------------
-------------THERE IS NO OTHER WAY-------------
-----------------------REJOICE!--------------------------