Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WT: Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona


sacase

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.

"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."

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.

"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."

Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's law, arguing it could lead to a patchwork of state laws.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration --commonly called sanctuary cities -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

And Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand that law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law - it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of anyone they detain who they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned, but in her statement after the lawsuit was filed, she said Arizona was being targeted.

:wtf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a dumb question but can Arizona sue the Fed Gov for not enforcing the federal law?

Don't see why the Justice dept can't be if they adopt policy counter to Congressional law. BWTFDIK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a dumb question but can Arizona sue the Fed Gov for not enforcing the federal law?

Sure they can but the Feds will just argue they are ENFORCING Federal LAW, however, they are just not effective at doing it. They are spending resources in AZ, however, ineffective they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they can but the Feds will just argue they are ENFORCING Federal LAW, however, they are just not effective at doing it. They are spending resources in AZ, however, ineffective they are.

That makes sense. However, it doesn't sound like they are even attempting to enforce the law in these 'sanctuary cities' in other states.

Back to the original topic... "there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities" WHY? WHY? WHY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is unbelievable. Way to put political beliefs WAY above the law of the land Holder. He is just a joke, this guy needs to resign. How the hell did this guy ever get appointed for such a position, the arguments he puts forward are absolutely embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is unbelievable. Way to put political beliefs WAY above the law of the land Holder. He is just a joke, this guy needs to resign. How the hell did this guy ever get appointed for such a position, the arguments he puts forward are absolutely embarrassing.

Yeah he can't be following the whims and agenda of the Obama cabinet, he must be a maverick. :rolleyes:

Look at the people Obama has surrounded himself with. All of them must have fooled him into thinking they were all moderate / centrist types. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic... "there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities" WHY? WHY? WHY?

Because the federal government does not have the authority to compel states to expend their resources on enforcing the fed's laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question. Is it fair to say that a Justice Department who prosecutes states that support federal immigration law, and doesn't prosecute cities that don't is in favor of illegal immigration?

If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My common sense response would immediately say Larry:

There is a difference between not enforcing a law 100%.

And stating illegals are welcome here.

So you think the federal government should prosecute local politicians for making statements concerning political issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the federal government should prosecute local politicians for making statements concerning political issues?

I expect them to take them to court to end supporting illegal activity and OPPOSING federal law..

I believe it comes down to:

Arizona is enforcing federal law and causing extra work.. Fight it.

Sanctuary cities are enabling illegals causing no extra work.. ehhh let it go, we believe in amnesty, we just can't get it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question. Is it fair to say that a Justice Department who prosecutes states that support federal immigration law, and doesn't prosecute cities that don't is in favor of illegal immigration?

Actually, I'd say that a Justice department that prosecutes anyone for supporting or opposing any legislation is violating the Constitution. This is America, and people (and their representatives) have the guaranteed right to support or oppose any political action. (See: NAMBLA.)

Now, if only your hypothetical actually reflected the topic of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect them to take them to court to end supporting illegal activity and OPPOSING federal law..

Too bad nobody is "supporting illegal activity".

(Well, no government. Obviously, lots of people are supporting illegal activity. That's why we have so much of it.)

And "OPPOSING federal law" is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.

Or do you support the government prosecuting people who, say, oppose Obamacare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try not obeying the mandates,it might change your opinion.

Point me at an "unfunded mandate" that compels local law enforcement to expend their own resources enforcing it.

Edit: Actually, I may have thought of one, kind of.

The requirement that local governments must spend their own time and resources using e-verify to enforce federal legislation against people doing things like requesting welfare.

It's not really "requiring local governments to enforce immigration law". But it's kind of close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if only your hypothetical actually reflected the topic of this thread.

Mmkay. Sorry for referencing sanctuary cities and Arizona, and the justice department's position on each in a thread with the title "Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona."

Ban me. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point me at an "unfunded mandate" that compels local law enforcement to expend their own resources enforcing it.

Interesting that you qualify that with "law enforcement" and not "school boards."

Hmmmm.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point me at an "unfunded mandate" that compels local law enforcement to expend their own resources enforcing it.

Edit: Actually, I may have thought of one, kind of.

The requirement that local governments must spend their own time and resources using e-verify to enforce federal legislation against people doing things like requesting welfare.

It's not really "requiring local governments to enforce immigration law". But it's kind of close.

If you expand beyond local law officers;) it is quite easy

In fact the feds are suing Arizona to do just that with illegal immigration

They are in fact being ordered to expend State funds as a result of the mandate NOT to enforce federal law.

To be a funded mandate the feds would have to pick up the costs of their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you qualify that with "law enforcement" and not "school boards."

Hmmmm.....

Interesting that you keep trying to claim that "I'll pay you this money, if you'll do these things" equals "I'll criminally prosecute you if you speak out against this law".

Let's pick a different example:

Does the federal government have the authority to bring legal action against any police department that chooses not to spend their own money arresting and jailing drug users?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact the feds are suing Arizona to do just that with illegal immigration

No, they aren't. Despite the dogged attempts of the law's supporters to try to distort reality try to spin it that way.

The federal government is suing AZ for violating federal law and/or the US Constitution. It's the only grounds they can have for doing so.

(Although I'll freely admit that I, personally, don't know which law or which part of the Constitution they claim AZ is violating. Me, I don't see what the DoJ has to object to. But I'm absolutely certain that they have or will file paperwork which at least claims that they are violating some law, some where.)

They are in fact being ordered to expend State funds as a result of the mandate NOT to enforce federal law.

Utter BS. They are not being required to expend anything, and there is no such mandate.

That is, unless you'd like to try to claim that there is a federal law that makes it a crime for local law enforcement to enforce federal law. Is that your position?

Do you know which law AZ is supposedly violating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...