.It was inevitable that federal judge Susan R. Bolton issue a preliminary injunction against parts of Arizona's new immigration law. The Obama administration argued that the law would interfere with its priorities in enforcing -- or not enforcing -- immigration law. That constitutes "irreparable harm," Bolton wrote, and that's all it takes to stall the law until higher courts rule on its constitutionality.

Whatever the courts ultimately decide, the public has reason to question the Obama administration's contention, "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

By that logic, shouldn't the DOJ go after sanctuary cities? No, the DOJ answered, there's a "difference," as I reported in Tuesday's column.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer doesn't see it that way. This came from Deputy Chief of Staff Paul Senseman:

"It is not a matter of sanctuary cities choosing not to enforce federal immigration laws as DOJ suggests. Sanctuary cities are actively violating federal law (8 United States Code Section 1373a), which provides that 'Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.' In short, sanctuary cities get a free pass from DOJ for violating federal law, while Arizona gets sued for helping to enforce federal law as written."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/djs ... z0v16rnWTU