No plan to file lawsuits for refusing to cooperate with feds
Via-Washington Times
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
No comments:
Post a Comment