States sued feds over greenhouse gases; why not illegal immigration?

Most of us will pay more (and then some more) for utilities because Massachusetts and 11 other states successfully sued the Environmental Protection Agency over greenhouse gases.

Because of that suit, is it not logical that states could sue federal agencies for refusing to enforce immigration laws?

Case in point: In Jacksonville sheriff’s officers were called to an apartment for what they believed was a fight between roommates. The officers learned the “multiple people living in a one bedroom unit” were in the country illegally. The aliens were working for a popular local restaurant.

Fox 30 News said all the officers could do was turn the matter over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The TV station also said ICE didn’t plan to investigate—the 287 G law requires local authorities to hand the matter over to the feds.

Can there be any more glaring example of a federal agency refusing to uphold the law the agency is charged with upholding?

If a state can sue a federal agency and win, based on scientific claims touted as universally agreed upon when that is not the case, it makes no sense that a state cannot sue any agency for refusing to enforce laws the agency is directly charged with upholding.

Congress never mentions the cost of America’s open border policy. At the moment Democrats want to enable a tax increase on those the political class deem wealthy, starting at incomes of $200k for singles according to current rhetoric. Seniors have had Medicare Advantage subsidies cut.

Yet Congress is considering passing the DREAM Act which will likely result in a net loss to taxpayers.

Thus we are facing a tax increase and reductions in entitlements for American citizens yet we are considering a law that will increase benefits for those in the country illegally.

Congress has also failed to keep a promise implicit (and publicly made) when the 1986 Amnesty Act was passed—that the border would be secured and we would not face such a situation again.

Obviously the law has not been upheld.

Besides that, our president has permitted Mexico to dictate criminal law in one significant aspect. In the UN Human Rights Report, the Obama administration promised to abide by the Avena decision. That means even if a citizen has lived in the US since he was a child and received federal benefits, he can commit a violent crime and before US law enforcement can act, he must have access to a consular official. Therefore illegals have it both ways—they can enjoy the perks of living in one country yet be protected by sometimes less rigorous laws of the country where they are citizens.

Arizona and other states with budgets stretching to accommodate those who are citizens of another country and who break federal laws should sue federal agencies that oversee immigration. Massachusetts did it and the victory in Massachusetts vs. EPA in my opinion opened a litigation door very wide.

[Commentary by Kay B. Day/Nov. 24, 2010]