Let’s apply the administration’s logic on the Arizona law to other areas
to “The gravamen of the DOJ’s case against Arizona,”
Tim W. writes:
So it’s a really bad thing for state laws to reflect federal law. That might result in more violators of federal law being caught, and thus place an undue burden on federal law enforcement officials by requiring them to do their job and enforce the laws in question, as they are sworn to do.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 07, 2010 10:01 AM | Send
Meanwhile, dozens of cities have sanctuary laws which promise violators of federal immigration law that nothing will be done to them. I had always assumed that the reason the Justice Department hasn’t challenged these laws is because the last several presidents have been open borders advocates. They had no desire to enforce laws they didn’t happen to agree with. But I now see that their refusal to enforce the laws they swore to defend, and which they are obligated to defend as part of their job description, was merely due to concern with our overburdened federal law enforcement divisions. Surely America’s founders anticipated such a situation, where states or localities would as a matter of state or local law harbor violators of federal law, so as to keep the feds from being overworked by having to enforce the laws they were hired to enforce.
Meanwhile, I’m very concerned that federal civil rights officials are going to be overworked by the aggressive enforcement regime Obama and Holder have instituted. I call upon all the states to repeal any civil rights laws which mimic federal law on such matters as racial discrimination. With both the states and the federal government going after such criminals, too many violators might be apprehended, placing an undue burden on those federal officials charged with enforcing such laws. Perhaps it might even be appropriate for a hundred or so localities to pass legislation promising to protect those who violate federal civil rights laws. It’s only fair. I’m sure Obama and Holder would agree.