It appears that Obama and his minions are completely willing to see the divide on illegal immigration devolve into chaos, since his Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has already indicated that they won’t be taking any calls from Arizona going forward.
It takes a small, petty man to make such a small, self-interested decision. President Populist is just such a man.
From the Examiner:
On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency suspended the federal program known as 287(g) for Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status after an arrest had been made for any offense. The program has been highly effective in identifying criminal aliens at the local level.
The decision came only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision to let stand the portion of Arizona’s immigration law which requires local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is here illegally.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, 287 (g) agreements are “not useful” in states that have enacted SB1070-type laws. So, even if local law enforcement arrests an illegal alien, their requests to ICE are likely to fall upon deaf ears and the suspect will simply be released.
This has been discussed quite a bit in the last 24 hours, and by folks several orders of magnitude smarter than me. BUT: there is a factor missing. I want to highlight it, because I made this exact point months ago with a couple of my buddies. And it’s something that I haven’t heard from anyone else other than Levin last night.
Hey, if I have to agree with someone, I’m happy to have the “Great One” on my side.
From the Daily Caller:
On his Monday show, conservative radio host Mark Levin explained why yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the controversial Arizona immigration law, could pave the way for legal action against “sanctuary” areas that welcome undocumented immigrants.
Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” first expressed his disappointment in Chief Justice John Roberts for signing on with the decision, which dismantled much of the Arizona law while upholding a section that allows law enforcement to force suspected immigrants to show documentation that proves their legal residency.
“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal activity.”
However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find themselves in hot water.
“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”
Now obviously I’m no lawyer, but this point seemed rather obvious even to little ol’ me. That’s why I was surprised that no one else seemed to be making it. It’s also why I didn’t dwell on it for awfully long: I just figured there must be more to it which my non-lawyerly brain didn’t properly comprehend. That may still be the case, but it doesn’t change the fact that Levin’s law firm, Landmark Legal Foundation, also reached the same conclusion in a brief published earlier this year, noting a decision similar to the one yesterday would create “chaos and confusion”.
If the federal government’s politically motivated challenge of SB 1070 is successful, rather than bring consistency and certainty to immigration on a national level, it will create even more chaos and confusion. The federal Executive Branch’s selective and inconsistent application of field preemption in immigration law must not be given this Court’s imprimatur. Otherwise, lawless state and local governments that have adopted sanctuary policies that directly violate federal immigration law and have not been challenged by the Executive Branch will continue to be lawless. Conversely, law-abiding governments that help enforce federal immigration law will be without direction.
The illegal immigration issue (and it’s important to remember to include the word ‘illegal’ here) is only going to grow more rancorous and divisive, as a direct result of Obama’s actions. However, Arizona didn’t pick this battle: they just decided to fight back. I have sided with them from the start, and my reason is simple: the Arizona law is a direct outgrowth of that state’s frustration over our own Federal Government’s failure to secure the border. This law would be superfluous if that were to happen. ALL other methods they choose to rationally deal with this issue need to be viewed through the prism of being told, point-blank, by Uncle Sam, “No, the US gov’t won’t protect you, and you can’t protect yourself, either”.
Well, they are protecting themselves, and God Bless ‘em for having the spine to do so.
I’m not from Arizona, but I can certainly understand their plight. In the face of an increasingly hostile Federal Government, I am completely on the side of the State, any state, which is merely trying to fulfill their obligation to protect their legal citizens.
Two Heads are Better Than One 
Sanctuary cities may be illegal – I actually believe that they are; but without enforcement, what value does the term illegal hold?
None.
Which is exactly the point.