The country weighs in on Arizona illegal immigration lawsuit
The ink is barely dry on the Federal lawsuit against Arizona’s new illegal immigration law and politicians from both sides of the isle are ready to lay claim to the right or wrongness of the divisive issue.
First up is Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA); “The lawsuit highlights the failure of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. Calling for an injunction to stop Arizona from enforcing the law only compounds this failure.”
The highly-contentious immigration law closely mirrors the federal government’s policy on illegal immigration enforcement and experts across the board see the legal injunction as a political ploy.
“Pointing fingers at the communities who are trying to make a difference only makes matters worse. The time for political posturing is over. It’s time roll up our sleeves and get to work on real reform,” Bilbray explained. “When President Obama wants to sit down with the Immigration Reform Caucus to develop a strategy on moving forward, we will be ready to work with him.”
House minority leader, John Boehner (R-OH) repeated a growing chorus of lawmakers concerns, “The federal government shouldn’t be suing Arizona – it should be helping Arizona.”
The Obama Administration contends the lawsuit will challenge the Arizona illegal immigration law on the basis of its Constitutionality. The case will be heard by an Arizona federal judge on July 22, who was appointed by former President Clinton. Amnesty advocates hope to at least stall the law from being enforced on July 29th.
In a statement from the Department of Justice, officials claim the law “interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy.”
However, Arizona’s Congressman Harry Mitchel, a Democrat, accused the Obama Administration of “political posturing.”
Looking to the latest Fox News Opinion poll, 52 percent of the country favors Arizona’s law while only 27 percent oppose the law, once again leaving the President out of step with most Americans. The poll also identified poll numbers by political party and found 73 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of Independents and 30 percent of Democrats favored Arizona’s new law. Even more interesting is a Denver Post poll that found 62 percent of Hispanics favor the new Arizona law.
It doesn’t matter if lawmakers in Arizona are Republican or Democrat most side with their state. Case in point is Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick who went ‘On the Record’ saying she was very disappointed that the Obama Administration has chosen to take a security issue and make it political. “I think we should get together… rather than have a lawsuit, let’s get to the table and work out a plan that secures the border and fixes immigration.”
Emboldened Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) said, “The filing (lawsuit) is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.”
The governor goes on to say, “The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted patchwork of sanctuary policies that directly violate federal law.”
At the White House press briefing, Robert Gibbs was asked that very question and quickly replied, “I’ll have to get back to you.”
Critics as well as proponents agree that this case will ultimately be heard in the nation’s highest court when they resume the fall session. As such, the make-up of the Supreme Court would certainly come back with at least a 5-4 decision in favor of Arizona right to enforce illegal immigration within their state’s borders.
Equally mad at the Obama Administration are Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who also issued a joint statement regarding the Administration’s lawsuit against;
“It is far too premature for the Obama Administration to challenge the legality of this new law since it has not yet been enforced. Most legal experts believe such a ‘facial challenge’ to the statute would be very difficult to win. Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.”
The statement continues to imply that Attorney General Eric Holder speaks of the “‘federal government’s responsibility’ to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility? The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.”
Another symptom associated with illegal immigration is the costs taxpayers end up paying for in food stamps, housing subsidies and health care. Illegal immigration costs the United States an astounding $113 billion a year or an average of $1,117 for every legal resident household in the U.S., according to a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The study also reported that this the “first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications for FAIR.
In the past FAIR has testified before Congress on numerous immigration issues.
Many open border/amnesty groups were quick to slam FAIR’s latest report and said their study conflicts with the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration did not hurt the U.S. economy.
Regardless of opinions, the DOJ’s case itself goes after Arizona’s right to enforce a ‘pre-emption’ part of federal law and stayed clear of the racial-profiling claim the government originally chided state lawmakers with.
Nevertheless legal gurus argue the pre-emption has been waived by the federal government’s failure to act. After all, all the Arizona law did was empower state law enforcement with the same criteria as Border Patrol, but within the Grand Canyon State not without.
It’s worth pointing out the 10th amendment reserves to the states those powers not specifically “granted” or enumerated to the federal government, including a waiver to act.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner
Click here to find out more!