April 26, 2012
It’s a story which is being framed by the national media as “a racial profiling” issue, but in reality it is simply an issue of state’s rights versus the federal government’s desire to rule over them.
The US Supreme Court is currently hearing a Federal lawsuit against Arizona over the state’s controversial S.B. 1070, the results of which have not pleased the White House’s ruling party.
Before the case was heard, liberal critics were lambasting Arizona for passing a state law which they described as ‘racist’ and unfair towards the state’s Mexican immigrant population. Critics cite Arizona’s tough immigration crackdown law as being excessive, a law which requires local police to check over immigration status of suspected illegals, and enforce tougher controls employing illegals. Media coverage leading up to the hearing wrote off any success on Arizona’s part, with many calling their law “an embarrassment to the state and its residents.”
After yesterday’s hearing, however, those critics have shrunk into the shadows following the Supreme Court’s initial findings that Arizona is well within its rights to enforce existing federal immigration and border control laws – laws which the feds themselves haven’t managed to get around to enforcing.
If successful, a favorable decision by the court will give Arizona de facto permission to start enforcing immigration laws, and would amount to a crushing defeat by Eric Holder’s Department of Justice and the Obama federalists in Washington DC.
Apparently, Supreme Court justices took a rather dim view of the Obama administration’s dictatorial claim that ‘it will stop Arizona from enforcing existing immigration laws.’ Obama’s inside weapon was Justice Elana Kagan, until she was forced to recuse herself from the case because of her biased views on the Arizona immigration issue dating back to her service as Obama’s solicitor general in 2010. In political terms, Kagan’s ejection from the case was a rare incidence of “what goes around, comes around” – nothing less than a first round knock-out blow to Obama’s case.
Unfortunately for the federalists, this latest clash with Arizona has exposed the real thinking behind the White House’s cryptically entitled DREAM Act, which the White House is pushing as their master plan to provide “a pathway to citizenship” for illegals. Critics of Obama charge that the DREAM Act is just another White House project to secure the nation’s Latino voting bloc for future elections.
Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin makes loud and clear Washington’s disdain for the concept of state sovereignty, twisting the US Constitution himself stating:
“Under our Constitution, states do not have the right to pass their own laws preempting federal laws on immigration. It is wrong and counterproductive to criminalize people because of their immigration status”.
AZ State Senator(R) Russell Pearce travelled to Washington to defend his state’s rights, and to testify on the burden of illegal immigration on Arizona. Pearce explained, “I have been in public service most of my life and I have seen the real costs and damage caused by the presence of illegal aliens in our country. In Arizona alone, the annual cost of illegal immigration is approximately $2.6 billion”.
One would think that Washington would be thanking Arizona for doing what federal agencies could not bother to do – and do so at a far less cost to the taxpaying public. Instead, the Obama administration chose instead to sue the state of Arizona.
This should give the rest of the country a clue as to what Washington’s current leadership truly wants for America’s 50 states – for them to be dependent on the federal government.
And if you resist?
Then expect the White House and its DOJ to spend your taxpayer money suing you.
This article was posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 12:28 pm