First, their citizens are bombarded by negativity from liberals around the country for trying to defend their borders when the Federal government refuses to do so. Then, the Obama Adminstration files a federal law suit against them to stop their steps toward self-preservation. This this proper?
American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski wrote this column appearing July 29, 2010, on BigGovernment.com. (a portion of which I excerpted here)
“Wednesday’s federal court decision on Arizona’s immigration law is being rightly criticized for a number of reasons. But there are three silver linings to this situation, which may result in the rule of law prevailing in the end.
“On July 28, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction—meaning she stopped from going into effect—most of the key provisions in Arizona’s new law. As I’ve written previously, this law should be held constitutional because it’s not an immigration law; it doesn’t determine who can become a citizen or who can be on American soil. Instead it’s a police-power law, where Arizona says that if you’re not permitted to be in this country, then you’re trespassing if you enter Arizona, and if you have a run-in with the cops for some other reason, then those cops can ask if you’re in this country illegally.
“This is not an immigration law. It’s also not racist. It’s not racial profiling. And it’s not usurping the role of the federal government (which has abysmally failed here).
“Instead, it’s an employment law and property law. That authority arises from Arizona’s police power to make laws for public safety, health, and societal welfare—which the Constitution reserves to the states through the Tenth Amendment.”
You can also read the article here:
Do you feel the U.S. is correct to sue Arizona?