Thread: Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona

Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona
No plan to file lawsuits for refusing to cooperate with feds

By Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland

2:29 p.m., Wednesday, July 14, 2010

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."

Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's law, arguing it could lead to a patchwork of state laws.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration --commonly called sanctuary cities -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

And Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand that law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law - it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of anyone they detain who they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned, but in her statement after the lawsuit was filed, she said Arizona was being targeted.

"President Obama's administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of 'sanctuary' policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials," she said.

Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, repeatedly telling a reporter it would get an answer as to the president's thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.

In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into both potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.

When it was file July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit only attacked the law as infringing on federal prerogatives. It did not make any allegations the law violates civil rights.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society the federal government can't tolerate different policies.

"You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system," Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.

Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department's inspector general found 15 cities that don't regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn't regularly tell authorities when a known illegal alien was being released from custody.

The IG report said two jurisdictions [-] Oregon and the city and county of San Francisco [-] acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries, while another 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service listed 32 jurisdictions it said might be considered sanctuary cities.

But the IG report also said even those cities that are categorized as sanctuary cities include language in their policies saying local authorities should cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

The Arizona law has become a flashpoint for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters support the crackdown.

Arizona officials say the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and say they are suffering a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They said the law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators announced they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit.

http://oneoldvet.com/

www.washingtontimes.com

Obama Justice Department Declines to Sue Sanctuary Cities
Mark Whittington
Published July 14, 2010

Selective Litigation Suggests Political Purpose for Arizona Suit

The Obama administration is suing the state of Arizona because it claims that its anti-illegal immigration law runs contrary to federal immigration law. Apparently, though, the Obama Justice Department will not sue
so-called "sanctuary cities."

"Sanctuary Cities," such as San Francisco and Houston, are termed such because they refuse to cooperate with federal efforts to find and deport illegal aliens. Law enforcement and other officials in these cities will not forward the names of illegal aliens to federal authorities, even if they are arrested for committing crimes.

Arizona is being sued for a law that, in effect, supports federal immigration law and allows law enforcement to inquire about a person's immigration status if they are being questioned for other reasons, such as a traffic stop. It would, therefore, follow that, if the concern was a state or local government interfering in the enforcement of federal immigration law, that so-called "sanctuary cities" would face the wrath of the Obama Justice Department.

But, as it turns out, not so much. According to the Washington Times:

"'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.'"

The idea that the Arizona law "actively interferes with federal law" is, at best, debatable. But, as it turns out, it is already illegal for states and localities not to cooperate with federal officials in enforcing immigration law. As the author of the 1996 law, Congressman Lamar Smith points out:

"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. 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."

The question arises, then, what is motivating the selective litigation? It would seem that the stated reason, that of preserving federal supremacy, is not exactly the real reason. The purpose of suing Arizona is to appease the Hispanic vote, which President Obama and the other Democrats will need to try to blunt Republican gains in November. That purpose would certainly not be served by suing "sanctuary cities" for actually violating federal law.

www.associatedcontent.com

"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,".......YA THINK????
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!.
I am having a melt down.
This administration is In freakin sane.
This horse malarkey has got to stop.
They want war with us. Don't they?
Why else make such assinine, inflammatory,moronic statements, about something as black and white as immigration law 1-0-1.
God Save U,S.

from the 1st article:

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.

Who the hell do they think they are kidding? Enforcement? What enforcement... if the Government were enforcing the damn laws Arizona wouldn't have had to enact SB 1070.

Excuse my language, everyone... my blood pressure just hit the roof.

If anything interferes with enforcement it is SANCTUARY CITES!

Ug--this is so rediculous!!!!!! And AGGRIVATING

There is a poll on here. Either it hasn't been up for long or no one is looking at it b/c I am liking the percentages even though like 21 people voted

But they are 21 people I would probably get along with :P

Poll Results: The Obama administration will not go after 'sanctuary cities' because those localities are not as bad as Arizona, a state that 'actively interferes' with immigration enforcement law. Do you support this reasoning?

Yes 0 (0%)

No 21(100%)

Undecided 0 (0%)

Other 0 (0%)

Absolutely unbelievable We have a completely corrupt justice department that refuses to enforce Federal Law There needs to be an Investigation of the entire DOJ that Includes the executive branch This can no longer be tolerated by the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Maybe American citizens should just pick which laws that they want to obey from now on Man I am HOT!! right now......

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5462--0-0.html

The whole Doj and Ice at this time in history are a farce

WE MUST NOT HAVE SANCTUARY CITIES. IT IS TIME TO DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS AND HAVE ORDER IN THIS COUNTRY. IF OBAMA DOES NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS AND OBAMA JUST WANT AMNESTY FOR HIS ILLEGAL ALIENS, HE HAS TO GO. WE DO NOT NEED OBAMA. IT IS TIME TO ELECT A NEW PRESIDENT. AND WE DO NOT NEED THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY ALSO SUPPORT AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS.