Arizona has set up a defense fund to help with costs of the federal lawsuit President Barack Obama’s administration has filed against the state. In an official announcement, Gov. Jan Brewer said proceeds from the fund will be used “to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.”
States are paying closer attention to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
After the Obamacare bill was passed containing an unconstitutional mandate forcing every American to obtain health insurance, the state of Virginia was among the first of approximately 20 states planning to file a lawsuit against the federal government.
Arizona’s immigration law may also encourage other states to follow suit. The lack of federal attention to porous borders has resulted in a number of states keeping a close eye on Arizona’s immigration bill.
The lawsuit filed against Arizona by the federal government is probably one of many to come. Ironically the federal lawsuit doesn’t mention the objection President Barack Obama has often brought up, racial profiling. Obama used an example in April, that of a parent taking his child for ice cream and getting “harassed” because he might look like an illegal.
That talking point has been memed by the White House press machine, numerous advocacy groups, national branded media and statist bloggers as well as some Democrat congressmen.
Instead the federal suit said the Arizona law, S.B. 1070 is, “expressly designed to rival or supplant that of the federal government.”
At the top of the brief is Tony West, assistant US attorney general. West was a major bundler for Obama during the presidential election, raising thousands and thousands of dollars for the Obama campaign.
Brewer said the government is wrong to claim Arizona is trying to establish its own immigration law, explaining: “It [S.B. 1070] mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
Public statements by various Obama officials may actually hinder the federal case. Even the Homeland Security chief has said the border cannot be secured. And though a framework exists for legal immigration, the federal government has ignored those who come into the country and refuse to observe federal law. The government has expressly broken laws passed by Congress as part of the 1986 Amnesty bill that included a mandate to secure the border. Instead, the opposite occurred and the government turned a blind eye.
The outcome of the Arizona case will be pivotal because other border states and states with large illegal alien populations are hard-pressed to come up with funds for entitlement programs, law enforcement and education.
Time Magazine offered perspective in an April article: “Passions about illegal immigration run high in Arizona, a point of entry for thousands of undocumented workers going to the U.S. from Mexico, and tensions were heightened by the recent murder of a rancher in a remote border area where illegal crossings are rampant. With 6.6 million residents, Arizona's illegal-immigrant population is estimated to be half a million people.”
Arizona might actually use those figures in defense of the new law because Article I, Sect. 10, 3. of the US Constitution gives states the right to ‘engage in War,’ if ‘actually invaded’ or if the state is ‘in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.’
On Thursday, The Arizona Republic featured another story about a Pinal County sheriff’s deputy shot by people believed to be drug cartel associates. The paper said, “[Louie] Puroll suffered two flesh wounds to his side from an AK-47. Despite a search by about 200 law officers and six helicopters, all suspects escaped along with backpacks purportedly loaded with marijuana.”
Arizona’s estimated half a million illegal aliens highlight the overall issue—in the US, there are believed to be 11,600,000 ‘unauthorized immigrants,’ according to the Center for Immigration Studies who based that figure on DHS data.
Arizona’s stance on S.B. 1070 is a result of a border state struggling to keep the rule of law in place.
In contrast, proponents of amnesty and/or open borders see the profit in an uneducated labor pool. Among those proponents are large landscaping concerns (as opposed to small businesses), day laborer groups, hotels and other tourism-related businesses, trial lawyers and immigration attorneys, all of whom benefit financially. Drug cartels, human traffickers, weapons smugglers also benefit.
Both major political parties have pandered to the same migrant groups because illegal aliens, believed to largely follow the ideology of advocacy organizations, are viewed as a voting bloc that is easily manipulated.
Brewer said Arizona is being “forced to incur” substantial legal fees to mount a defense against the federal government. Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at www.keepazsafe.com. --by Kay B. Day
~~Related Articles at The US Report~~