Problem With Federal Lawsuit Against Arizona

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The federal lawsuit against Arizona is now official. The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a 22-page lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona. Aside from charging the law could lead to racial profiling, even though the text of Arizona's law specifically disallows such practice, Obama and gang is using the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which the Democrats claims says federal laws take precedent over state laws.

Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that laws made "under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

But this is where the Democrats prove how little they understand the Constitution.

First, notice the key word in the clause: "contrary." Arizona's law is not contrary to the federal laws, it is nearly identical. In fact, the primary difference is that the federal law does not protect against racial profiling, while the language of the Arizona law does.

One must also remember that the Supremacy Clause only applies to issues in which the federal government is given authority, and it does not enable the federal government to dictate to the States regarding State issues, which include some issues that is shared by both the federal government and the States, such as immigration.

Besides, the courts have already ruled that local authorities have the right to enforce federal immigration law even without this [Arizona] law.

Another argument by the left is that immigration is a federal authority and states cannot enforce federal laws. If that is true, since the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is a federal agency, should the police wait for the FBI before pulling over drunk drivers? Banks are insured by the FDIC, making bank robbery a federal crime. Should local authorities wait for federal agents before taking chase against the bank robbers?

Arizona is simply reinforcing federal laws, and in reality, acting as a sovereign state with local authority over this issue.

Even though the federal government has laws regarding immigration, immigration is only mentioned once in the Constitution. Naturalization is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, where the federal government is tasked with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Note, however, it only gives them the authority to establish the rules for naturalization, which is enabling immigrants to become citizens, and it says nothing about the federal government maintaining or performing any actions regarding those rules. Therefore, the issue would fall to the states when it comes to enforcement.

Where immigration is mentioned is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1. The clause was written for a two-fold reason, mentioning both slavery and immigration.

The Clause reads: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such importation. . . "

In other words, before 1808, the federal government could not prohibit immigration, which means it was a State issue. Then, after 1808, Congress could prohibit migration as it wished by passing legislation. The States, however, maintained themselves as the enforcement arm.

Where the Constitution is specific regarding this issue, however, is the border. It is the federal government's duty to seal the border, in order to protect the union from invasion. This clause is in Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. . ."

By allowing law breakers into the country without inspection or the immigration process intact, the federal government is actually placing the States in jeopardy, and is not living up to its commitment. In short, the States are being exposed to invasion.

U.S. Code, Chapter 8, Sections 1324 and 1325, from the Immigration and Naturalization Act, considers it a felony to be conceal, harbor, or shelter illegal aliens. So by enabling law enforcement in Arizona to pursue questioning regarding the legal status of potential immigration violators, Arizona is actually making sure they do not violate the U.S. Code.

The lawsuit against Arizona is politically motivated, and has nothing to do with the law, or with the Constitution. The lawsuit is ridiculous, and should fail badly. But the Obama Administration is not really interested in the outcome. All they care about is appearing to the Hispanic population that they are "on the side of Latinos."

Well, they may think they look like they are on the side of Hispanics, but ultimately, they are not on the side of Americans.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Immigration law in Arizona target of federal lawsuit - Christian Science Monitor

Experts: 'Ridiculous' Lawsuit Won't Nix Arizona Law on Illegals - NewsMax