From the Lunacy Files:
No, you didn’t misread that. That fictional headline is the essence of the situation vis-à-vis The United States of America v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity. Maximum Leader Obama’s Department of Justiculation has filed suit against the willfully compliant state in U.S. District Court in Phoenix for daring, in the absence of federal enforcement, to attempt to administer the codified immigration policy of the United States.
No word yet as to whether the head apparatchik at Justice, Eric ‘The Place’ Holder, has read all ten pages of the text of the Arizona law that he is attempting to countermand. Odds are no, which is completely understandable. He doesn’t have time to read it; he’s too busy suing over it.
Here is a choice passage from the lawsuit’s complaint:
If allowed to go into effect, [Arizona Senate Bill] S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.
Two obvious questions: What careful balance? What enforcement priorities? The objective we already know: the formation of a monolithic bloc of dependent voters. Who else is going to protect you from the screaming xenophobia of Americans but the fellow man of color who fought for your blanket amnesty, Barack Hussein Obama? The Election 2012 Fun Bus will be by tomorrow to take you to the polls. Remember: vote early; vote often; vote Democrat. Viva el Presidente!
Here’s a question to which a legitimate answer exists but no one will offer. What has the federal government done today in Arizona to demonstrate ‘enforcement priorities’? Has it, for instance, deported any illegal aliens? Does the term ‘illegal alien’ even have any meaning within U.S. immigration policy other than in reference to those pesky ‘migrant workers’ from Mars?
More from the complaint:
It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s ‘attrition through enforcement’ approach.
The presumption here of inevitable harassment is delightful, and not at all manipulative. As for detention: yeah, that’s the penalty for breaking the law. ‘Attrition through enforcement’ is the foundational principle of criminal law: maintaining order by the removal from society of lawbreakers. Here’s another foray into the realm of the obvious: the presence of an alien in this country without the proper documentation is proscribed; it’s illicit; it’s unlawful. Difficult concept, to be sure, but with all the advanced degrees hanging on the walls of Justice, one would think not totally incomprehensible.
Finally, this bit of wide-eyed disingenuousness:
It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster.
No, legal marvels, it’s called ‘asylum’. Crack open your hardbound display copy of Black’s sometime. And, if already granted or applied for, it would obviously supersede the wanton deportation you so desperately fear.
Declaimed Comrade Holder of the lawsuit:
Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns.
Translation: “We’re just not going to. As we have failed to do in any substantive way for decades.”
But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.
This is richer than George Soros, coming from a politicrat like Holder. This is the same bunco artist who refused to implicate ‘radical Islam’ in the Faisal Shahzad case. But Arizona’s mere intention to apprehend illegal aliens for their by-definition breaking of the law will cripple the federal government, resulting, naturally, in a deluge of ‘terrorism suspects’ even though when faced with an actual terrorist act, the government refuses to designate it as such! And other run-on sentences!
If the federal government was as quick to enforce the law as it is to sue, none of this would be an issue. The government’s complete abdication of its responsibility can only be about malfeasance in the form of racial gerrymandering or cross-eyed, drooling incompetence.
Make the case for a third option; impossible, if words still have meaning. Which, clearly, they don’t.