We learn from the Washington Post that Democrats in Congress have a "fallback" plan in case the US Supreme Court upholds the Arizona immigration law. Included in that plan are the following:
NY Democrat Senator Chuckie Schumer said,
“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended.”
He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
'Ya gotta love this, folks. As Mark Krikorian notes,
So, for open-borders legislators, running to the courthouse is Plan A, while actually going through the deliberative process of legislating is Plan B. Because, you know, they might lose if it were put to a vote, and there’s no sense in taking that chance if you don’t have to. That pretty much sums up the governing philosophy of the Left: Only when all else fails should you try democracy.
And, of course, if Schumer and his idiot pals had done their job long ago, Arizona might not have felt compelled to act on its own behalf.
Meanwhile, Congressional Dems and our illustrious Justice Dept. could care less about so-called "sanctuary cities" which outright ignore federal immigration laws by providing a safe haven for illegal immigrants!
A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”
”There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”
Right. Arizona doing what the feds essentially REFUSE to do is "actively interfering." In other words, the state is "actively interfering" in ... nothing. And the author of the actual law that requires -- requires -- [sanctuary] states and localities to cooperate with the feds when it comes to immigration laws says Eric Holder and the administration are full of it:
For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law who fail to comply with the law is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”
This is your modern Democrat Party, folks. Go after states/localities that actually enforce the law, and look the other way at states/localities that piss on same. And if the highest court in the land upholds the rights of a state to enforce federal immigration law, our Democrats in Congress will thwart the state by ... passing more laws. Which, again, Democrats will only enforce when they want to. And they won't want to in those sanctuary cities, just like they don't approve of voter ID laws. Because scamming a few illegal votes in the upcoming elections just might make the difference between victory and defeat.Posted by Hube at April 24, 2012 04:47 PM | TrackBack