 |
| Courtesy of Iconphotos |
Two seemingly unstoppable forces are poised to collide over Arizona's controversial immigration law. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) is set to spar with the United States Department of Justice as the Obama Administration announces that it will make good on its threat to sue the state. However instead of backing down, Governor Brewer has signaled both to the Administration and to the public that she will not be intimidated saying, in reference to the Obama Administration, "We will meet you in court" and that she has a good track record of winning in court. And with those words, the age old struggle between State and Federal jurisdiction is again headed for another showdown.
Where One begins, the Other Ends
In a simple word, the lines between State and Federal powers would be easily discernible and the powers-that-be would never infringe upon the jurisdiction of the other. To bad nothing in this world is ever simple. Since its birth, Americans have constantly fought over the issue of federalism and no clear answer has ever been set upon. Before the Civil War the states controlled the majority of powers, yet then became nearly obsolete under President Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. This issue has extended even into the modern day , most vigorously presenting itself in the new Arizona immigration law.
For those who do not know or just need a refreshers course, the Arizona bill signed into law this past May was designed to combat the unchecked illegal immigration patterns in order to protect the welfare if its citizens. The law and those who supported it also cited the lack of federal government effort and attention as a reason for the necessity of the bill. The law itself, now amended, allows police officers to inquire about a persons citizenship status while detaining that person for a previous infraction. For example, if a person was speeding down the road the police officer could pull the individual over and while in the process of ticketing him for speeding, may (if he has reasonable suspicion) ask about his citizenship status. If the same individual driving the same car was not speeding then the officer would not have the right to inquire about his or her citizenship. Then, if the person in question fails to provide adequate and accurate information ensuring his or her citizenship then that person may get deported.
The Obama Administration has found fault with it in three ways, although it seems they will only sue over one issue in particular. The first fault presented by the Obama Administration was that the law might allow for racial profiling. This attack was launched while the bill was still in its first form and before it had been amended. Now that it has been amended and officers have to be in the process of citing an individual for a prior offense, the Administration has seemed to back away from this stance. However, the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is not leading a lawsuit of its own on these grounds, even though the law itself contains multiple statues and sections outlawing and condemning racial profiling.
The second stance, which is my personal favorite to denounce, that President Obama took against the AZ bill was that he "could not support this bill because to do so would be to support 50 different bills in 50 different states." In other words, federalism. However, I may then ask how he can be in support of each state having its own stance on gay rights or medical marijuana usage. He is a proud proponent of states deciding these important issues, so in his words, he does support 50 different bills in 50 different states. To me this is hypocrisy in the extreme. He's not really against federalism, he just doesn't like the bill and is trying to find any reason to back down from it. Besides, if he really felt that way he would be against federalism which is a core principle in the Constitution.
The last issue that the Administration has with the Arizona Immigration Bill, and the one they seem to lean on for legal support, is that they feel they have been trumped by the State of Arizona. The federal government says that protecting the border and issues of national security are a federal issue, and in that they are very right. Look Bush's billion dollar fence and the Department of Homeland security, all meant to deal with national security issues like immigration. However, the states also have the responsibility to protect the welfare and of its citizens. To the people of Arizona, immigration reform is necessary action and with the federal government ignoring the issue, responsibility then fell to the state. The feeling in Arizona is 'if the Feds wont, the State will.' However, my best case and point with this is that the Federal government under Obama has since acquiesced to state power when he announced that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) will no longer raid medial marijuana facilities in states where it is legal, even though it directly contradicts federal policy. If that's not being trumped, I don't know what is! Plus he decided it, he has set the precedent that federal supremacy isn't complete and that sometimes the states get right what the Feds get wrong. Using that logic, the AZ bill should pass with flying colors.
What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets and Immovable Object?
In the end, I personally think that whether the Administration wins the lawsuit or not doesn't really matter. The problem of illegal immigration went from a non-issue for Congress and the White House to a matter of utmost importance. In that alone the people of Arizona have accomplished their goal. They were tired of inaction and through this law, they have drawn national attention to the issue that affected them most. In that I congratulate them for America has not seen that kind of activism since the Civil Rights Era and the Vietnam War. They knew what they wanted, and now, whether through the state, federal government, or both they will get what they so desperately needed. I also feel the need to congratulate Jan Brewer for her outstanding courage to stand up to the federal government and to follow through with protecting her constituents and delivering on their needs. That took guts and the fact that she is facing the Department of Justice without blinking just adds more to her credit. For that alone, one may not like her but one must respect her.
Now the fact that I don't think the lawsuit matters in the since of creating action on illegal immigration reform, doesn't mean that I don't have my own theory on who will win. I believe that because of the federal government s prior inactivity and the fact that they must take the battle to the state courts, not the federal circuits, that the State of Arizona will win. Jan Brewer has all the advantages: judges who live and deal with this issue everyday, the Feds prior disinterest, plus the power of the state to be able to protect its citizens welfare, all add up to a victory for Brewer. Plus a firm will never hurt anybody and compared to Jan Brewer, Eric Holder looks even more spineless than usual. Just my opinion!
Later,
Cody
No comments:
Post a Comment