What is wrong with this administration? Well, OK, that’s way too broad, and a can of worms that is difficult to close. Let’s narrow it down a bit. Only a few days ago, the governor of Arizona was meeting with the president. That might have a been a good time to let her know of your intentions. Which intentions? To use the US public’s (yeah, the same public that supports Arizona’s law with almost 70% agreeing with it) money to sue the state for enforcing federal laws that the US government neglects to enforce. Instead of this “common sense approach”, they opt to have Secretary of State Clinton announce to the Ecuadorian people that the federal government will be “bringing a suit” against one of its own states.
This just made my jaw drop. I mean you can’t tell a governor to her face about this? OK, forget that part. You have to announce this to the people of a foreign country, not the US public? Wait, forget that. You are suing a state that is the victim of the federal governments negligence in border security for upholding federal laws already on the books?
Where do you begin with the arrogance, and ineptitude of this move? What precedence do you set when you blatantly disregard the very laws you are sworn to uphold? What message does this send when you can’t even announce this to your own people who will have to pay for this legal battle?
When will this administration think about long-term consequence and fundamentals of logic before speaking?
Like this:
Filed under: Politics Tagged: | Arizona, Centrist, Clinton, Conservative, Democrat, Indepependent, liberal, moderate, Obama, Politics, republican, Third, united states
If Obama grants amnesty by executive order … I think he’ll be in deep do-do.
What did you expect? Obama’s a WIMP. He prefers the “Chicago style” of communicating…..via back-stabbing, or even better, letting someone else do the “dirty work”.
Oh….such esteemed people we have running this country! (not).
Yes….they like wasting “the people’s” money on senseless litigation.
I think the difference here is the sucking chest wound that is illegal immigration in Arizona, that is costing them millions (if not billions over the last decade) and contributing to violence, and kidnapping. To sue the federal government over this, the patient would die on the table before a decision were handed down.
As for the “papers”, what do police do when they pull you over for speeding? Do companies do when you present a credit card (usually)? Do employers do when you’re hired? They ask for verification you are legal to do what you are trying to do. I see no problem in asking anyone pulled over if they are supposed to even exist on the roadways. In many cases people that don’t have a license on them when pulled over, didn’t have a viable one to begin with.
What’s scary about this, is that the federal government is not only causing a problem that the states have to take it upon themselves to fix, but is then using the taxpayers’ money (who overwhelmingly support AZ) to fund the suit. This is ineptitude, corruption, and arrogance all in one move.
I do not think that either route would lent itself to the same lag time. It is highly likely that there will be an injunction placed on AZ as the case winds its way to SCOTUS. Either way, they are not going to be able to enforce this thing immediately. With that in mind, it makes more sense to sue the government to enforce its laws rather than pass a law of questionable constitutionality. I imagine AZ would be enduring a lot less wrath if they had gone that route.
Driving is not really a good example. How many times has it been stressed that driving is a privilege and not a right? More times that I can count. To exercise that privilege, you have to have to have your license on you. In some states, one has the right to refuse an officer to show your identification if you are not driving.
The requirement for credit cards is a private business protecting itself from theft. There are no government mandates involved. It is a private transaction and one or both parties can refuse to complete.
Now, the documentation for employment is a good one. That is where the AZ is not controversial (in my mind) and I actually support. I have always thought that the best way to address the illegal immigrants is to take away the sole reason for them being here which are jobs. I think that the government should be going after companies that employ them and punish them more than requiring them to find more illegals to hire.
There are many problems caused by the federal government because those that are supposed to enforce it refuse (housing bubble fraud and BP oil spill come to mind). Funny how different groups cherry pick which ones are important.
I don’t always agree on the points, but they’re always good ones Terrant.
Cherry-picking enforcement is pure corruption in my view. Whether it is signing statements, lawsuits, or just non-enforcement, it is willfully flouting the law.
On top of all this, to use my tax dollars to restrict a state from simply verifying eligibility to exist here due to the fed’s resistance to their own laws is unthinkable. To announce this in a foreign country is laughable and inept at best. Couple this with the other failing of the administration, and I really can’t see how any level-headed person re-elects them in 2012.
One would have thought that a lawsuit over the AZ’s law was going to happen no matter what was said. There was no chance of seeing eye to eye on issue. Probably would have been a waste of time to even bring it up. As to Hillary, I would like to know what she was smoking.
Let’s ignore the impact on illegal immigrants (no sympathy here). In my mind, the real problem with AZ’s law is its impact on US citizens. Personally, a law that effectively requires citizens to carry their “papers” reeks of what was done in the USSR.
What I do not understand, if this law is so close to the federal law, why did they not just sue to get it enforced similar to how California sued the EPA over carbon emissions?