Over at one of my favorite Left Wing websites, Think Progress, the same folks who asserted that the south got what they deserved with the recent outbreak of tornadoes and deaths because their lawmakers dare question the scientific validity of global warming, they recently ran an article authored by several writers. I assume they used several writers because they either (1) lacked much intelligence individually or (2) they needed more people to voice their hypocrisy. Any way, the article was about Arizona's SB-1070, the "controversial" immigration legislation enacted because the Federal government was doing basically nothing about illegal immigration.
The "article" was an attempt to compare Arizona pre-SB 1070 to now even though a Federal injunction has prevented any provisions of the law from going into effect. Up front, they noted that on the 1 year anniversary of the law being signed by Governor Brewer, "hundreds" took to the streets to protest the law in Phoenix. Most official estimates of the crowd were no greater than 500, although KPHO noted there were, at most, 300 protesters. That is 300 protesters in a city with a population of 1.4 million in a state with 6.6 million people. That translates into about .04% of the Phoenix population and I didn't bother to figure it out for Arizona's population.
But there may be a reason for that. The article then goes on to describe Arizona as a barren wasteland languishing in the desert because the illegals have fled the area. In their wake, they have left towns economically devastated, stores shuttered, schools emptied, and, i suppose, rolling tumbleweed through the streets of Phoenix. Relying on statistics provided by a Latino group, the article goes on to discuss the possible full economic impact of a law that has not even gone into effect. They claim that 581,000 jobs will be eliminated, the state economy will shrink by $48.8 billion and state revenues will decrease 10.1%. However, one needs to keep in mind that these are statistics provided that are based on estimates and are hypothetical at best. They also fail to account for the savings in schools, social services, and incarceration (in the long term) that SB 1070 would create.
The article then goes on to describe copycat laws that are being considered in 22 states. For example, Alabama, Georgia and Oklahoma are proceeding with legislation preferring not to wait for the courts to decide the fate of Arizona's law. Meanwhile, Florida's law is quietly being gutted and rendered toothless in their legislature while both Kentucky and Indiana have shelved their attempts. But then, even the previous information were 100% factual, they get into trouble. They compare the Arizona beneath-the-surface-racist law with efforts in Utah. And here is where they allow either their abject hypocrisy or their ignorance of legal theory get in their way.
In March 2011, Governor Gary Herbert of Utah, a Republican, signed several bills into effect involving immigration. They do the following:
1. allows undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements to carry a state-issued worker permit;
2. creates a migrant worker partnership with Mexico;
3. allows Utah citizens to sponsor migrant immigrants who want to work or study in the state.
There are, leaving aside the accusations of racial profiling and discrimination against the Arizona law, four main arguments against enforcement of SB-1070 that have been set forth at the District Court and Appellate Court levels. First, the Federal government, under terrorist-protector Attorney General Holder, asserts that the Arizona statute is preempted by Federal law under the Supremacy Clause and, in fact, the Constitution does grant the Federal government the exclusive right to make and enforce immigration laws. However, along the way, Congress has entered into agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies to aid in the enforcement of immigration laws, so the issue gets a little gray. In fact, that is their second argument- that the Arizona law conflicts and interferes in Federal immigration law and policy. That much is true; Arizona is actually doing something about illegal immigration. Third, they claim the state action interferes with the execution of American foreign policy. And finally, they claim it impedes the execution of the objectives of Congress with regards to immigration.
Let us for a brief second allow Holder and the Justice Department these arguments. Lets just say that SB 1070 is preempted by Federal law, it conflicts with federal immigration law and policy, with foreign policy, and it impedes the objectives of Congress. If all this is true, then why wouldn't Utah's law be in violation of these very same legal arguments? Did Congress grant states the right to issue guest worker permits? Is Utah permitted under Federal law to negotiate partnerships with foreign governments regarding bringing in foreign workers? Finally, is Utah permitted under Federal law to "sponsor" migrants- legal or illegal, and wouldn't these sponsors then be breaking Federal law? None of these questions are answered, nor will they be answered. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has requested that Holder seek an injunction against Utah on the very same grounds the Justice Department used against Arizona. In classic Holder style, he has denied that request because the law does not go into effect until 2013. However, the Arizona law did not immediately go into effect (signed on April 23rd, to go into effect July 29th). The first lawsuit was filed on April 29th with Holder weighing in on July 6th. The injunction against implementation came down July 28th. In the case of Utah, the Justice Department would just have to rewrite their briefs and submit them to a court since hopefully the arguments would be the same. If the Supremacy Clause and Congressional objectives and foreign policy concerns are abrogated by the State of Arizona for passing an immigration law, then the same must hold true for Utah. Saying that, in effect, he has time because the Utah law does not go into effect until 2013 is hypocrisy at it its highest. If these constitutional principles must be defended in Federal court against Arizona's come-uppance, the the same holds true for Utah. What is good for the goose is, they say, good for the gander- except when Eric Holder interprets the Constitution.
What Holder has said in response to the Utah case is that by 2013 "we might be in a different place." Indeed, we may which makes a second Obama term that much scarier. This has nothing to do with defending the rights of the Federal government or any other constitutional principle. This has everything to do with pandering to the Hispanic community in the west and elsewhere in exchange for votes in November 2012. The irony of the entire situation is that the Arizona law largely mirrors Federal law with respect to documentation and codifies, at the state level, what has been Federal law for over 50 years. As if we already did not know the Left, Holder and Obama (actually synonymous) were hypocrites, this certainly proves it even more.