The politics of the US v. Arizona immigration law challenge
Froma Harrop is a liberal. But (perhaps surprisingly) she does not think Obama is wise in pursuing the lawsuit against the state of Arizona. Harrop thinks it’s an especially bad idea in the political sense:
The Obama administration is challenging Arizona’s tough new immigration law, and that’s too bad. It’s not that the Arizona law is good policy, because it isn’t. And it’s not that President Obama doesn’t have a better idea on immigration reform, because he does. Democrats should know that they play with fire by going after a law that reflects the public’s utter frustration with illegal immigration.
I find it interesting that even Harrop—a staunch Obamaphile, when last I noticed—is alarmed by this move and realizes it is hugely unpopular with the American public and could backfire. Although that sort of thing has never stopped President Obama before, she advises him to pursue the Schumer-Graham immigration reform bill instead and lay off Arizona:
Many [voters] may not care much for the details in the Arizona law, but after decades of seemingly open borders, they may feel it’s the only law they have.
It’s up to the Obama administration to change that impression. The president can do that by leaving Arizona alone and promoting an effective and humane immigration policy going forward.
I’m not in agreement with Harrop on most things, but if I were still on the same political side of the fence as she I would most definitely agree with her here, and I understand her frustration with Obama’s tendency to shoot himself (and the party, and the liberal cause) in the foot.
What Harrop doesn’t understand is that Obama is not thinking on the same wavelength as she. He is not trying to solve a problem called illegal immigration. He is not trying to appeal to people of good will on both sides. He is trying to prove his bona fides to Hispanics and leftists, and to serve warning to Arizona and other states that if they try to take matters into their own hands and challenge his failure to enforce the law and protect them, it will cost them plenty in time and money, and they may lose.
It will be very interesting to see how this case goes in the courts, including the one where I think it may end up, the SCOTUS.
[NOTE: There are some excellent comments on the Harrop piece, here, including the following from “Ernie + Banks:”
My understanding is that the Arizona law carefully mirrors the law that has been in place in Rhode Island for several years. If it is legal in Rhode Island, and has been accepted by the feds, then why is it unacceptable in Arizona?
And if the premise of the federal case is that states and cities cannot pass laws about enforcement of immigration status, then why do they permit the existence of sanctuary cities all over the US?
Finally, I understand that the federal law calls for local law enforcement agencies to turn over illegal residents to the feds for prosecution. All the Arizona law does is provide guidelines to local police on how to do that. Rather than contradicting federal law, it supports it and provides clear rules to be followed. This process is followed in virtually every other field of law. What is so special about immigration?
I wouldn’t write off Arizona’s chances of prevailing in court. They are likely to be slapped down with an injunction written by the Clinton appointee that will hold the first hearings. And that injunction likely will be upheld by the 9th circuit, the most liberal federal circuit court of appeals in the country. But when it lands in the Supreme Court, it could go either way.
One more observation: Harrop notes that the public “may not care much for the details in the Arizona law.” But it seems to me that many members of the press (and the Obama administration) have not even learned those details, and/or are consistently misrepresenting them. Much of the public seems to have done its homework more attentively than either of those entities, and seems to understand and appreciate that the details of the law are not nearly as bad as painted.]
Does Obama ever care about what is in a law? He is too lazy to really get involved in policy, and possibly too dumb to understand its potential effects. The man operates at a level of superficiality that is astonishing. He just wants to rack up points on a legislation scorecard.
Obama and Holder knew exactly what was in the AZ law. They just said they hadn’t read it so they could put out the meme that it was discriminatory without having to defend the claim on its merits. This advantage, they concluded, was worth looking lazy and stupid. Just shows how little they think of the merits of their case!
The flood of illegal aliens walking into this country daily is only half of the problem. The other half, the part that doesn’t get much attention, is the fact that America’s southern border is a 2,000 mile-wide drug highway.
There is no need to indulge in conspiracy theories or contend that this or any administration is in cahoots with the drug cartels. But the need of many Americans for narcotics is at least part of the reason nothing has been done to close the border. Check into the stories of crime that spurred the Arizona law in the first place, and then magnify them on a nationwide scale.
Government officials are surely aware of the violence and chaos that would follow when the easy flow of illegal drugs is cut off. That is a problem they are likely not be prepared to deal with.
If AZ succeeds in their bid, which hopefully they will, don’t we still end up with the issue of Feds (not likely) enforcing the law and deporting identified illegal aliens turned over to them by local law enforcement?
I don’t see millions of illegal aliens just saying okay, let’s go home now if AZ succeeds, and the other 18 – 20 states waiting in the wings successfully pass like immigration laws. I certainly don’t see blanket amnesty as a viable option either, but folks – we got a problem here that ain’t gonna go away without the state and federal government agreeing on a solution. Call me idealistic, but I’m not seeing the “United” in the U.S.A as much as I’m seeing a bunch of squabbling SIG’s wanting their piece of the government teat, and a bunch of spineless politicians handing out admission tickets to suckle.
Bruno Bunce…we need more of you.
Bob M: that’s why I added “and/or are consistently representing them.” I agree with you that Obama and company are well aware of the law’s contents and are misrepresenting them for political reasons. Members of the press, on the other hand, in many cases may really may not have read the law.
neo said, “…..this move and realizes it is hugely unpopular with the American public and could backfire.”
Hugely unpopular? YES!! A TV station here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound did a survey on the law. 81% were in favor of it. Yes, here in the bluest of blue states, 81% FAVOR the Arizona law.
the latest “pin gibbs to the wall” game this has hit. the press, or some of the press, has decided to have fun asking the kinds of questions we used to make up for the catholic kids to ask priests.. (done to death as comedy routines stolen from real life)
the kind of questions that reveal the hegelian system that is opposing logic and order and main… class, class. anyone? anyone? illogic, chaos, and fringe…
that is, they are illogical, chaotic, disordered, and manned mostly by fringe: incompetents, malcontents, deviates, envious, predators, naive, gullible, mental defectives, etc…
they ARE legion…
lots of the old cultural things are things that expose them and or allow us to sort them and so have a better functioning society given whatever level our adopted ideas allow (with some cultural systems maximizing, some minimizing (and usually claiming the others are cheating)).
Merit can ALWAYS defeat them, if merit is allowed to be employed… (but merit destroys equality, so you have to choose).
merit asks for consistency, performance, etc… and lacking that, selects a new person to take up the task till performance rises. this sorts us, and so creates disproportionate outcomes.
after all, when you want a politician out for being incompetent, and you want one in for being competent, you are asking for disproportionate outcomes. Ergo, you are forbidden to use effective performance measures as that would make us unequal, it would create a meritocratic society that looks at our abilities and finds out that some classes don’t perform, though always checks every individual (for out of class performers).
We all know who are the guardians of personhood and equality are and have expanded the ranks…
i guess few understand that people who seek power to change things are incompetent at anything other than acquiring power in a pure sense. if they were competent at other things they would not need power because competence brings its own power with it (ergo their desire to trash public competence).
competent people change things without needing the force of a gun to compel. they do not need to grab or seize power after lone manipulative games to create change and improve the world, they are not empty. incompetents feel they need power or else they are nothing, they ARE empty, and feel power will allow them to fulfill some change and in a cargo cult way gain what competence grants with work and perseverance, etc.
this is why they are cargo cult, collusive, amoral, etc. those are ALL the realm of fringe and incompetence who do not wish to actually do the work to earn the outcome… cargo cult seeks to magically make things happen by doing. “if you build it they will come” was a great way of embedding the concept, no? collusive as they believe the competent are cheaters too, just better, and so they wont work to be as competent and compete (ergo killing competition and risk, as being too fearful of risk means you dont try to climb the ladder to personal freedom and creative destruction of those already on the hill). so they seek to become somewhat competent and collude using alignments and back ends to do what competent people do in the open (ergo the actual level of transparency). and amoral is easy… if merit and that all is moral, then hegel would say its antitheis is amoral. good vs evil, they take what side to enable the behaviors. (and it goes back to those commune progressives of the early 1800s who saw freedom from all oppression – ie. no limits and a victim class who want love their victimhood, and are taught they are born to be victims, so that class can no longer be oppressed from the freedom of being the predator of humans (ergo their love of similar predators as seen in their weird selective leniency)).
so its interesting to see what happens when someone asks a simple meritocratic question that seeks to understand chaos and a position your supposed to blindly accept by begging self consistency, and order.
Stumping Gibbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-BG9ksLLVo&feature=player_embedded
it also exposes something else. that they have to collude and brainstorm for angles and answers. being a member of a collective means you cant ad lib things or give real answers unless you know them already. ergo why they argue in canned responses (worked out for the result, not merit). so when you ask a merit question that requires empiricism (enlightenment as they are anti-enlightenment!), merit, competence, autonomy… you get the result in the video above…
Bob M and neo,
I agree that Obama knows what is in the AZ law. My reaction above was to Harrop’s saying that Obama had better ideas on immigration. I think Obama’s laziness has to do with him not caring about whether any given law is the best way to solve a problem. He doesn’t really analyze a problem and listen to different points of view. He knows generally what he wants in advance and if Pelosi can give him something that’s in the ballpark, he doesn’t care about details. He wouldn’t risk anything to change a provision. He has to see himself as the one who fixed America’s sins, and at that level of involvement you don’t worry about the fine print. From community organizer to law school to state legislature to Senate, he has always attributed his lack of success to insufficient power, never to faulty principles or execution. He just can’t let the small stuff get in the way of his vision.
MSNBC has an online poll on the Arizona law. So far 95% favor it.
I understand that Rhode Island has been doing what Arizona proposes for over a year.
“”He has to see himself as the one who fixed America’s sins””
Expat
That would be the sin of meritocracy instead of fixed classes at the direction of politicians and academic elites. Basically the American Dream turned into a central planning nightmare.
Ya have to love the new “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill.. like 8A program at the SBA it takes a position where everyone gets help except white males (though if its like 8A you can get help if your a white male and not heterosexual under some of the exceptions clauses).
Cool, eh? Ya have to love central planning…
wait till they bring up full employment…
SteveH,
Well that’s certainly one of our sins, but I think Obama’s list would be quite extensive. Just think, we embarrassed the Muslim world by putting a man on the moon and didn’t even acknowledge our debt Muslim culture. We enacted voting rights laws without including a provision that said laws could be violated at will by any group he needs in his voting base. We dare to honor Winston Churchill for standing up to Hitler. I could go on for pages.
I was going to suggest taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times and the Washington Post, providing the complete text of the Arizona bill (with key portions highlighted). The bill really is that short, after all.
But as several have already pointed out, the problem isn’t that the Obama Administration hasn’t read the law, even though they claim they haven’t. The problem is that, by now, they must know what’s in the bill… but they have a vested interest in fighting it.
(For that matter, would NYT or WashPo publish such an ad? I doubt it.)
By the way, please note just how ridiculous this situation is. We have a federal government unwilling to enforce its own laws, on a matter than the overwhelming majority of Americans agree is a crucial issue. So a border state enacts a law, spelling out how it intends to enforce the Federal law already on the books.
The Administration’s response is first to attack the bill while admitting not to have read it. (Skip Gates, you have been eclipsed.) Then, without ever correcting that statement, a lawsuit ensues.
Haven’t we been told repeatedly that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”? Why does this apply to us, but not to the White House?
Bottom line: if President Obama has not read the law (while continuing to misrepresent it), he’s an idiot and a hypocrite. If he has read the law (while continuing to misrepresent it), then he’s a bald-faced liar to boot. (Personally, I have little difficulty believing that he’s all three.)
I would dearly love to see a federal Shooting Off Your Mouth Law — any legislator or government spokesman who publicly misrepresents a proposed or existing law, and does not recant and apologize within 72 hours of having the error pointed out, should be required to read the original text, in full, on CSPAN.
Wouldn’t it be fun to have such a law, and to catch President Obama misrepresenting the Constitution? He’d then have to read it aloud on national TV. I’d love to see that.
And God help any Congresscritter who dares to misrepresent any key portion of Obamacare. You’ve got a lot of reading to do, buster.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Daniel…
do you realize the rate of a full page at the times?
A full-page black and white ad in the Wall Street Journal National Edition will run you $164,300.
A full-page color ad in the Wall Street Journal National Edition runs $210,300.
MoveOn to Pay Full Times Ad Rate
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/moveon-to-pay-full-times-ad-rate/
On the issue of an issue that just hasn’t moved on, the liberal activist group MoveOn.org announced this afternoon that, in light of today’s column by The Times’s public editor, Clark Hoyt, it would pay the full advertisement rate of $142,083 for its controversial “General Betray Us?” spot in the A-section of the newspaper nearly two weeks ago.
if i had that kind of money, i would hire and bring some really awesome technology to market…
not waste it on a paper that is not being read and charges so high for what your getting.
In case Neo’s readers are interested, here is a post on my blog on my observation/reasoning that the logic of this suit effectively asserts the Union to be dissolved.