Imagine the following situation: A town somewhere in the Deep South decides to impose racial segregation ordinances. In such a case, would the federal government hesitate for a second to slap down this challenge to its authority? Most certainly it wouldn’t. Very swiftly that town would face a lawsuit from the Justice Department and action by Congress to cut off whatever federal funding it receives.
Federal officials would affirm that no local jurisdiction has authority to violate federal law, in this case the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Senate recently had the opportunity to uphold in a different context the same legal principle, but failed to do so by not passing legislation introduced by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA).
His bill proposed to restrict federal funds to states, cities and counties that have sanctuary policies. These policies prevent law enforcement agencies in those jurisdictions from cooperating with federal government’s enforcement of immigration law, specifically to arrest, detain and deport illegal aliens. This refusal to cooperate is a blatant violation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996.
Significantly too, the Obama Administration has refused to sue sanctuary jurisdictions for their flouting of federal law. This is most ironic because it zealously slapped lawsuits against jurisdictions that passed enforcement measures against illegal aliens, claiming that those measures were usurping federal authority.
To try to explain this glaring contradiction, the administration resorted to transparently bogus and slippery legalese. In 2010, Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for former Attorney General Eric Holder, said, “There is a big difference between a state or a locality saying they are not going 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.”
In reality, the authors of the state and local immigration laws took great care to ensure that they did not contradict or supersede federal law. But even if that were not so, it would have no bearing on the legality of sanctuary policies. The 1996 law explicitly requires that jurisdictions assist federal enforcement.
The administration attempts to slide around this reality by suggesting that “active” violation of federal law is wrong, but that the passive violation by sanctuary jurisdictions is somehow acceptable. One wonders what body of law upholds this curious distinction.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), author of the 1996 law, sums up the whole issue very well: “For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law ... is absurd. 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.”
Indifference to law, with respect to immigration, has characterized the administration since President Obama entered office. He revealed that indifference most profoundly when he tried to decree amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. By doing so he completely disregarded the constitutional separation of powers that assigns the authority to make laws to Congress, not the president.
With the Senate’s vote on sanctuary cities, Congress too is displaying indifference to the rule of law. Most of the senators who voted against Toomey’s bill, like the president, are Democrats which suggests a partisan agenda. Many Democrats seem to view policies to benefit illegal aliens, including amnesty and eventual citizenship for them, as a way to build a powerful voting bloc for their party. Prominent Democratic strategist Robert Creamer has explicitly advocated this political strategy.
The Republicans, however, are hardly blameless, as many of them thwart effective immigration law enforcement for the sake of GOP business interests which seek an endless supply of cheap labor. Greed, myopia – perhaps simple stupidity as well – seem to blind these Republicans to what their cheap labor obsession portends for the future of their party.
When our Founders launched our nation they warned of the dangers that political partisanship, factionalism and vested interests would pose to a county dedicated to liberty under the rule of law. We ignore those concerns at our peril.