In addition to not enforcing existing immigration laws, the Obama Administration has launched a full charge against embattled states seeking to protect themselves from massive illegal alien invasions.
If this doesn’t make your blood boil, you might as well emigrate! Of course where to, in our increasingly shattered world, is a good question.
Your constitutional rights, under Article IV, section 4, which requires the Federal government to protect the citizens from invasion, are under attack—as they have been throughout this president’s administration.
Now even the Open Borders Washington Post is having to report this anti-states policy on its front page: Justice targets laws like Arizona’s: US vs. States on immigration; Obama administration may file new suits,[ By Jerry Markon, September 29, 2011]
“The Obama administration is escalating its crackdown on tough immigration laws, with lawyers reviewing four new state statutes to determine whether the federal government will take the extraordinary step of challenging the measures in court.
“Justice Department lawyers have sued Arizona and Alabama, where a federal judge on Wednesday allowed key parts of that state’s immigration law to take effect but blocked other provisions. Federal lawyers are talking to Utah officials about a third possible lawsuit and are considering legal challenges in Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina, according to court documents and government officials.
“The level of federal intervention is highly unusual, legal experts said, especially because civil rights groups already have sued most of those states. Typically, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in other lawsuits filed against state statutes.
“‘I don’t recall any time in history that the Justice Department has so aggressively challenged state laws,’ said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University Law School.
The legal skirmishing comes as immigration emerges as a defining issue in the presidential campaign and Hispanic voters play an increasingly influential role. Most Republican candidates are calling for a hard line on the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants — and criticizing Texas Gov. Rick Perry for some of his positions on the issue.”
This immigration issue is becoming yet another sharp division in the already deeply divisive politics of the upcoming election.
Obama has clearly indicated his sympathies with alien groups and the usual suspects who want cheap labor and more people in their church pews.
As the WaPo piece tells us:
“President Obama is staking out a position on the other side. He told a roundtable of Latino reporters Wednesday that Arizona’s immigration law created ‘a great danger that naturalized citizens, individuals with Latino surnames, potentially could be vulnerable to questioning. The laws could be potentially abused in ways that were not fair to Latino citizens.’”
Of course the usual suspects are importuning Obama for more action, including the well-funded American Civil Liberties Union—which should really be called the Alien Civil Larceny Union. Really disgusting.
The article continues:
“Now, the administration is under pressure from some quarters to intervene in those states, as well as in South Carolina, where a new immigration law is set to take effect Jan. 1. Civil rights groups have been lobbying the executive branch, according to people familiar with the effort, and the ACLU is circulating an online petition calling for federal lawsuits.”
And of course in this long run up to the elections in 2012:
“Conservatives have criticized the Obama administration for suing Arizona, and some legal observers said they detect political motives in the administration’s additional legal steps. The White House has been trying to rekindle excitement among Hispanic voters, many of whom have been disappointed over Obama’s immigration policies.
“Justice officials have denied any political motives and said they are proceeding based on the facts and the law. Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have been critical of the state measures, with the president also telling Wednesday’s roundtable, ‘We can’t have a patchwork of 50 states with 50 different immigration laws.’”
Oh yeah? Why hasn’t the Obama Administration sued the sanctuary cities?
But the ACLU threatens to join in the litigation mugging of any other state that jumps into this vital Constitutional battle:
“‘You’d have to be crazy to pass one of these laws, knowing you’re buying yourself an enormous lawsuit,’ said Cecillia D. Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. She called the Alabama statute, signed into law in June, ‘by far the most draconian and extreme.’”
Even requiring proof of legality to be here in the USA is now being questioned!!!!
“The Justice Department and a coalition of civil rights groups sued over the law, which requires public school officials to determine citizenship by seeking children’s birth certificates. Civil rights advocates say that will keep some children out of school because their parents will fear being deported.”
Could we get Supreme Court intervention? Yes! And before the 2012 election!
“Hovering over the debate is the possible involvement of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in April that the most contested parts of Arizona’s immigration law will remain blocked from taking effect, and the high court could decide to hear the case this term. That would mean a decision before the 2012 presidential election.
“‘My guess is that they will take it,’ said Jonathan Benner, a Washington lawyer who has argued numerous cases involving federal-state conflicts. “This is the kind of case that is most interesting to the Supreme Court.”“
Folks, this is really wake-up time on the immigration issue, Our immigration overload, legal and illegal, requires us voters from all persuasions, right, left and center, to act to fix our broken system.
Donald A. Collins [email him], a free lance writer living in Washington, DC. , is a long-time board member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s (FAIR). However, his views are his own.