Above the Law
Vol: 129 Issue: 26 Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Nobody saw this one coming. At least, nobody saw it coming the way that it did. Of all the provisions of Arizona’s SB1070, the one provision everybody thought would be struck down by the Supreme Court was unanimously upheld.
The Obama administration argued before the Supremes that racial profiling would follow if police were allowed to stop and demand to know the legal status of those they suspected to be in the country illegally.
“Profiling” is the word used to describe when police combine their powers of observation with their powers of logic to narrow the field of suspects. For example, if a witness describes a suspect as a black man and so police exclude brown, yellow or white men from screening, well . . . that’s “profiling” and it’s not allowed.
At airports, Swedish grannies and toddlers are routinely pulled from line for “special screening” to make sure they aren’t terrorists.
Since every act of terror ever committed at an American airport was committed by a Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 35, government officials are NOT allowed to focus their attention on Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 35.
THAT would be racial profiling and therefore, logical and forbidden. That is the argument the government tried to use against SB1070 — that if police were allowed to use their powers of observation that it would result in racial profiling.
But that’s the one part of the law the Supreme Court upheld unanimously, saying it will give police a chance to see if they can implement the law properly without violating civil rights.
“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [that section] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
In opposing the Arizona law the federal government’s entire argument is based on and revolves around the idea that all Arizona cops are corrupt, dishonest racists who will use the law to discriminate against minorities and therefore, cannot be trusted.
That’s the position taken by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat and staunch opponent of immigration enforcement.
“This threatens the safety of all Americans and undermines the fundamental relationship between police and the communities they serve.”
That’s just standard Democratic scaremongering. How would enforcing immigration laws “threaten the safety of all Americans”? Nobody is advocating shooting illegal aliens. No, Gutierrez’ real objection is typical of Democrats — they assume every official is as corrupt as they are.
“Experience has shown us that police are highly unlikely to stop an individual with the last name of Kennedy or Roberts on suspicion of not being a legal U.S. citizen, but if you are a Gutierrez or Martinez, watch out,” he said.
The law had four chief components. Three sections that set up state criminal penalties for immigration violations were struck down in the 5-3 ruling. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.
But all eight justices upheld the provision allowing police to check the status of those they had “reasonable suspicion” were in the country illegally, and then report their identity to federal authorities.
The federal government could then decide whether it wanted to pick up and deport the illegal immigrants, or let them go, the Court determined.
While Obama claimed victory on three of the four points, the fourth point is the one he hated the most. And so he told DHS to ignore it.
“Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”(Revelation 12:12)
The Obama administration responded to the Supreme Court ruling by saying that the federal government would NOT work with Arizona on immigration issues. To underscore that point, they rescinded agreements already in place.
To punish Arizona for daring to stand up to Obama, the administration said it is rescinding the so-called 287(g) agreements with the state of Arizona that allowed some local police departments to enforce federal immigration laws.
Under the 287(g) program, state and local law enforcement agencies entered into a partnership with DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement and were delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.
Arizona is the only state singled out by DHS for the federal snub — other states with similar arrangements are not affected.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer responded to the end of the 287(g) agreements with an angry statement Monday.
“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law,” the statement said.
“Since 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security credits the 287(g) program with identifying nearly 300,000 potentially-removable aliens nationwide. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to assist in the enforcement of immigration law, including many in Arizona,” the statement added. “In fact, even as the President was wiping out Arizona’s 287(g) agreements, the ICE website itself continued to herald the collaborative approach of the 287(g) program, noting, ‘Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated through a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise.'”
Most incredible of all, the federal government announced it will set up a hotline so that people can call in to complain about how Arizona cops have violated their civil rights. The federal government is facilitating complaints. . . no, they are soliciting complaints against the state.
It is nothing short of deliberate, federal intimidation of a state to prevent that state from enforcing laws on the grounds that the President doesn’t think the law is fair. The Congress passed it. The Supreme Court affirmed it.
But Obama doesn’t like it. So he is going to ignore it. Can he do that? Not legally. But what difference does that make to Obama? If an existing federal law doesn’t meet with his approval, he refuses to acknowledge or enforce it.
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.” (Proverbs 21:2)
“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.” (Proverbs 12:15)
The Greek word for lawless is anomos, meaning “without law.” In the New Testament (King James Version) this word is translated in different ways (“lawless,” “unlawful,” “wicked,” “transgressor”) but it always conveys the basic meaning of lawless.
The noun (anomia) is also translated in various ways (“unrighteousness,” “iniquity,” “transgression of the law”) but each time it carries the basic meaning of lawlessness.
“Because iniquity [lawlessness] shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matthew 24:12)
“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)
Drawing nigher every day . . .