Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't

Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.

Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.

Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.

That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)

Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.

Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.