United States vs. Arizona: Politics in the DOJ

Amid Crises, Obama declares war - on Arizona.

There are several cases in which the Department of Justice seems to be choosing its cases based on political considerations rather than the law. Now the Department of Justice has filed a case against the State of Arizona concerning its new immigration law.  The President has compared the law to Chinese abuses of human rights.   He has emphasized the possibility of racial profiling in his condemnations of Arizona, but the actual case against Arizona is based upon federal preemption, and does NOT mention racial profiling, apparently. Arizona's law would short-change federal enforcement resourses in other states, or something.

But Arizona has not started enforcing the "problematic" provisions of its new law, while Rhode Island has. So why isn't the Obama crowd boycotting Rhode Island and calling them racists?

(a) Rhode Island has actually been enforcing the same procedures that allegedly make the Arizona law controversial, and (b) those features (checking immigration status when there is reasonable suspicion to do so, referring illegals to the feds for deportation) have already been upheld by the courts. (Indeed, reasonable suspicion is not even required for the police to be able to ask about a person's immigration status.)

Well, Obama has some company in decrying American immigration policy, which the administration is failing to enforce. Interesting op-ed here:

Attorney General Eric Holder finally filed that long-rumored lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law. In his opinion, only the federal government has the legal authority to “enforce” (read “completely ignore”) border security. If the Obama administration were convinced that Arizona would treat illegal immigration the same way the feds do, they wouldn’t have bothered to sue.


Unfortunately, Arizonans seem to take the rule of law seriously. And this is a big problem for Team Obama. Holder is worried that trained and knowledgeable local cops will actually prove that the law is enforceable, blowing his boss’s cover. Remember President Barack Obama’s claim last week that our borders are “just too vast” for us to secure them through enforcement, with fences and border patrols?


The border’s too big. The hole in the Gulf is too deep. The recession is too stubborn. Maybe we should find the president a smaller, easier-to-manage country to govern. You know - send him to the minors for a few years. . . .

Personally I think that the reason the Obama administration is going after Arizona but not Rhode Island is that Arizona passed its law during this administration. This is a challenge to Obama's rhetoric and plans concerning immigration. Hence the political selectivity in the filing of lawsuits by the DOJ.

Obama's positions on immigration are not totally unreasonable. And we do need an immigration law which allows for more rational legal immigration and assimilation, without people living in the shadows of society due to an uncertain legal status. But going to war against a state which wishes to help enforce federal law, misrepresenting the population and the state government as racist, is not the action an ethical administration should take.

On the lighter side: Democratic County Supervisor: "Arizona's law might have been justifiable if it was a border state". You know, like Rhode Island. Lots of other stupidity is also evident surrounding this case.

UPDATE: The Secretary of State indicates that the suit was filed under the direction of the President. No attempt to insulate DOJ decisions from the rest of the administration here.

More "racist" immigrant policies have also been in  force in the liberal stronghold of Madison, Wisconsin.    Oops.  The City Council doesn't want to be bashed like Arizona.  The threats by Holder have made them think twice about their current policies.