Immigration is the single largest example of this Administration’s lawlessness, and one that hurts states, and their citizens because of the Administration’s crass and cynical belief that it can cash in on votes if it decides that these laws aren’t worth enforcing. This was demonstrated when Arizona, a state on the front line of the ongoing “soft invasion” (touted by “civil rights” groups like Mecha, which view this “reconquista” of “Aztlan” as a legitimate end) passed the notorious SB 70, which mirrored existing Federal immigration law, drawing attention to a huge problem being created by uneven enforcement/lack of border and immigration enforcement in border states.
Rather than addressing the problem by actually starting to enforce or vigorously enforcing borders and the immigration laws, the administration, through its top legal official, Attorney General Eric Holder, took it upon itself to instead sue the state of Arizona, claiming that Arizona could not enforce the law that the Administration clearly would not, based on the idea of Federal preemption. This rather absurd notion was made more absurd by the fact that the state actually DID have a role in enforcing the law as it existed. This was an extraordinary moment in American Politics. Never before had an Administration so brazenly made an argument that could be succinctly stated as “We cannot have the states telling us to actually do our jobs, and enforce the laws regarding immigration.”
While it certainly implicates issues of Federalism, it is the rhetorical equivalent of poking oneself in the eye with a fork. Many of the loudest voices of support of the Administration on this matter also support the concept of “Sanctuary Cities”, where municipal government service providers and law enforcement are not allowed to investigate the immigration status of individuals in their care or custody, and actually would find themselves in legal trouble and more than likely jobless if they were to do so. Federalism is cited as support for this policy. Only to those contemptuous of the law, could the notion that Federalism allows local governments to purposely ignore immigration law, but doesn’t allow a state to enforce it when it is being harmed by the failure of the Federal government (which has primary and Constitutional authority to do so, but has also delegated much of its powers of enforcement to state and local government) to do so.
Not content to simply poke its thumb in the eye of states looking to protect their borders when the federal government has blatantly abdicated its duty to do so, the Administration kicked it up a notch when the President announced that his administration would stop deporting certain classes of illegal immigrants. Some Obama apologists suggested that the announcement was little more than an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This is of course simply crap, because while those in charge of prosecution do have the authority to prioritize their activities, this does not enable them to selectively enforce the law, especially when doing so directly and indirectly harms “the governed” to whom they report. Nor does the excuse that the government has limited resources with which to prosecute the offense make sense…not when there is apparently no limit on Federal spending for numerous activities which it isn’t specifically authorized to do, and when there is obviously no limit on what the taxpayer can be expected to spend for the leisure time of the President and his family.
What makes this “there are simply too many of them here to enforce the law” argument so offensively wrong is the fact that the Federal government only has a small list of specifically enumerated jobs, and among them is defense of the nation. You cannot say that this duty has been adequately performed if you do not have control of the border. Given the fact that there is no lack of money for any number of things that the Federal government has absolutely no business doing, perhaps it’s long past due for Congress and the President to stop trying to buy votes from people who don’t think enough of our laws to actually follow them, and focus their attention on doing the duties that “We the People” actually assigned to them. Yes, it’s harder to create a constantly underachieving dependent class when they spend our money on the things they are actually supposed to be doing, but given how much the average taxpayer has had to reprioritize their personal spending so that the Federal government can carelessly redistribute what they make, it really isn’t too much to ask.
This contempt of the law wasn’t enough for the Administration. They had to turn it up to 11. How? By bringing illegal aliens to the State of the Union speech. After all, nothing says “We respect the law we’re charged with making and enforcing.” like when 3 Representatives, a Senator, and the First Lady all bring someone who openly breaking the law to hear the President address both houses of Congress and the nation. Especially since the rules of the House Sergeant-At-Arms require those who don’t have a Congressional ID to produce a valid Social Security Number, among other identifying information. But I guess that it shouldn’t be surprising that they treat the seat of national government like they treat the national border. And besides, some of these “guests” in our country who really, really, really want to be here don’t like being reminded of their willingness to remain here, breaking our laws, while they demand we make it easier for them to be US Citizens. Or something. But in answer to your question, Senor Vargas, “What do you want to do with us?” I want you to have enough respect for our laws to go through the proper steps to gain the privileges of citizenship. If it is worth having, than it is worth not letting you, or anyone else steal. Nor should those responsible to enforce the law give away the benefits without making sure the responsibilities go with them.
And as all great salesmen will tell you, “But wait, there’s more!” Lawless, Part III is coming.