The Savannah Morning News
Arizona, other states should continue fight for immigration enforcement.
The debacle in Arizona is a nauseating display of federal hypocrisy.
That state is arguably the front line in the cross-border war on human and drug trafficking, murder and kidnapping.
Wretched ruling on illegal immigration
Much of the violence, the anguish and unnecessary expense to Arizona taxpayers could be avoided if the federal government simply did its job.
That job is to secure our borders. It's to make Arizona and the rest of the states less hospitable for those who cross U.S. borders illegally.
The reasoning of District Court Judge Susan Bolton, in her decision to gut Arizona's new immigration law, is jaw-dropping in its blatant admission that the federal government is too busy to enforce federal law.
As written, the Arizona law requires police officers, when they detain an individual in a separate incident, to inquire into the person's immigration status. But that's only if there is reasonable cause to suspect the person is there illegally. Those charged with the new state infraction of being in Arizona illegally would be turned over to federal authorities for deportation.
But Judge Bolton claimed that federal agencies would be overburdened by calls from local law enforcement to deport illegal immigrants netted by police. Huh?
That Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents might be swamped if tasked with addressing the actual volume of illegal immigrants is a staffing failure on the part of the federal government - not a reason to preclude a state from protecting its own people.
Indeed, a major point of hubris in this whole affair is the federal government's contention that Arizona - and, by extension, all states - have no right to safeguard their populations. Even when the laws proposed by the states mirror, exactly, federal law.
Judge Bolton said that legal immigrants in this country would be unduly burdened by the provision of the state law requiring them to carry documentation of their immigration status at all times. But this is the same requirement called for by federal law.
Far from being a negative for federal authorities, the president and Attorney General Eric Holder should view Arizona's law as a state-funded addition of 15,000 officers as part-time immigration agents. Plainly speaking, the feds could use the help.
If states overstep their bounds by enforcing federal law, why then hasn't Mr. Holder filed suit against Rhode Island? That state has a policy issued through executive order identical to Arizona's law. The difference is, that rule wasn't issued during an election cycle.
The ramifications of the Obama administration's duplicity will be far-reaching, if allowed to stand.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine other states that filed a legal brief in support of Arizona should continue their backing. Legislatures in other states, such as Georgia, should push through similar legislation.
If states lie down now, they surrender to the Obama administration's suppression of the rule of law.
That job is to secure our borders. It's to make Arizona and the rest of the states less hospitable for those who cross U.S. borders illegally.
The reasoning of District Court Judge Susan Bolton, in her decision to gut Arizona's new immigration law, is jaw-dropping in its blatant admission that the federal government is too busy to enforce federal law.
As written, the Arizona law requires police officers, when they detain an individual in a separate incident, to inquire into the person's immigration status. But that's only if there is reasonable cause to suspect the person is there illegally. Those charged with the new state infraction of being in Arizona illegally would be turned over to federal authorities for deportation.
But Judge Bolton claimed that federal agencies would be overburdened by calls from local law enforcement to deport illegal immigrants netted by police. Huh?
That Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents might be swamped if tasked with addressing the actual volume of illegal immigrants is a staffing failure on the part of the federal government - not a reason to preclude a state from protecting its own people.
Indeed, a major point of hubris in this whole affair is the federal government's contention that Arizona - and, by extension, all states - have no right to safeguard their populations. Even when the laws proposed by the states mirror, exactly, federal law.
Judge Bolton said that legal immigrants in this country would be unduly burdened by the provision of the state law requiring them to carry documentation of their immigration status at all times. But this is the same requirement called for by federal law.
Far from being a negative for federal authorities, the president and Attorney General Eric Holder should view Arizona's law as a state-funded addition of 15,000 officers as part-time immigration agents. Plainly speaking, the feds could use the help.
If states overstep their bounds by enforcing federal law, why then hasn't Mr. Holder filed suit against Rhode Island? That state has a policy issued through executive order identical to Arizona's law. The difference is, that rule wasn't issued during an election cycle.
The ramifications of the Obama administration's duplicity will be far-reaching, if allowed to stand.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine other states that filed a legal brief in support of Arizona should continue their backing. Legislatures in other states, such as Georgia, should push through similar legislation.
If states lie down now, they surrender to the Obama administration's suppression of the rule of law.
we need a new federal government.