Sorry, Arizona. You are on your own. This administration has yet again shown its spite towards a state unwilling to blindly accept criticism from the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security today rescinded agreements that allowed seven Arizona law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, further hindering the state’s ability to enforce SB1070 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling today.
DHS announced that it was terminating its 287(g) task force agreements with the Arizona Department of Public Safety; the Florence, Mesa and Phoenix police departments; and the Pima, Pinal and Yavapai county sheriff’s offices. Those were the only agencies left in Arizona that had street-level 287(g) agreements.
Several Arizona police agencies also have 287(g) agreements for their jails, which allow agencies to check the immigration status of anyone booked into jail. Those agreements will remain in place, according to DHS.
In addition to the revocation of the 287(g) agreements, DHS announced that its agents would not respond to the scene of calls from Arizona law enforcement officers who want the agency to take custody of illegal immigrants, unless those suspects met the criteria it established for its enforcement priorities. DHS said its prioritizes illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals, deportees who have returned to the United States, and people who have recently crossed the border illegally.
This little spiteful temper tantrum is quite interesting, given the fact that the decision was unanimous in the Supreme Court's ruling that the provision of checking proof of residence would be kept for now and sent back to the lower court for review. Even the most liberal Justices voted with the others in that action. As this was the centerpiece of the case, it is a major public blow to the Obama administration.
By a vote of 8-0--Justice Elena Kagan recused herself--the U.S. Supreme Court this morning upheld what the New York Times calls the "most controversial provision" of Arizona's disputed immigration law. But in a decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Arizona v. U.S., the court struck down three other provisions of the law.
Most importantly in all this legal wrangling is the light shined on a liberal myth - that the Supreme Court is a conservative activist institution with the balance favoring those Justices appointed by a Republican president.
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
One lesson of this case is that the Roberts Court does not practice the radical activism of liberal myth. Its very careful jurisprudence is aimed at protecting the U.S. federalist system, in which states and the federal government share sovereignty and both possess rights that the other is bound to honor.
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
One lesson of this case is that the Roberts Court does not practice the radical activism of liberal myth. Its very careful jurisprudence is aimed at protecting the U.S. federalist system, in which states and the federal government share sovereignty and both possess rights that the other is bound to honor.
The protection of America's borders and its residents is the sole responsibility of the federal government. The Obama administration has been most brazen in its flagrant power grabs against individual states. President Obama came into office promising to be the most transparent of presidents as well as ending the practice of using executive order to govern. He continues to go around the laws passed by Congress in a blatent disregard of this campaign promise.
President Obama and his administration believe he is King, not President of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment