The Arizona immigration law SB1070 was specifically designed to mirror Federal immigration law. Meanwhile, sanctuary cities intentionally and openly defy Federal immigration law by outright inviting illegal immigrants to come and settle.
Which one does the Obama administration target with lawsuits for interfering with Federal law?
Sadly, this is so totally in line with other blatant double-standard turned-on-its-head pronouncements like the CIA focusing on climate change instead of terror threats, Janet Napolitano targeting veterans instead of Islamist radicals, banning local oil drilling while subsidizing Brazil’s drilling, and…
When airport types won’t quiz young Muslim men
But search nuns octogenerian
Then we know
Can we all agree that the people in charge are a bunch of radical lunatics who frankly don’t care how hypocritical and insane their rationalizations are? Even as Dems facing elections panic at the fallout that will ensue from their association with President Partisan and his irrational opposition to a 74% popular law.
Or as Ann Coulter puts it: With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona’s inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department.) … If Obama thinks there’s a conflict, I believe he’s made a damning admission. There’s a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws. … Unless, of course, Obama is right and it’s a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice’s lawsuit.
The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona’s new immigration law was singled out because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.
“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is “flimsy justification” for suing the state.
“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law –who fail to comply with the law — is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”
See this Spectator article for how the lawsuit against Arizona is outstandingly audacious (on tip from wits0).