The heart of what is at stake was captured by NRO's Rich Lowry: a back-door federal effort to ace out the concurrent states' role in immigration enforcement. RL contrasts Congressional law with executive branch discretion in enforcing--or not enforcing--the law passed by Congress, in whole or in part. Arizona's immigration law, RL writes, parallels the law as passed by Congress. So clearly the law Arizona passed does not interfere with federal law. (Here is a summary of the state immigration law role posted by the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform.)
Enter Team Obama. It has chosen to enforce some parts & not enforce other parts of the law on the books. It asserts that the precise balance they have chosen is sacrosanct. If the federal courts buy this argument, it effectively erases the concurrent jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has held states have in enforcing immigration laws.
Bottom Line. The stakes in Arizona's case are huge, nothing less than preserving the traditional concurrent role of the states in enforcing America's immigration laws.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Economy, Supreme Court, Conservative Politics
Comments