2010 Report: Administration Strategy

 

A more interesting bit of strategy comes out of the White House. The Justice Departments suit against Arizona over the latter's immigration law makes little sense in terms of law. To be sure, state governments cannot nullify Federal Law, nor can they act on matters that are exclusively entrusted to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Arizona's law does neither of those things. Is it really illegal for a state to enforce federal law when the Federal Government is failing to do so? The Justice Department is, in effect, asking the Courts to block enforcement of duly enacted Federal Law that the Fed doesn't want to see enforced.

It turns out that Rhode Island of all places has had a similar law on the books for some time. From the Boston Globe:

Rhode Island State Trooper Nuno Vasconcelos was patrolling Interstate 95 a few months ago when he came upon a two-car accident in heavy traffic. The trooper pulled up, stepped out of his cruiser, and asked one of the drivers for his license.

The man said he did not have a license, and under questioning, confessed that he was here illegally from Guatemala.

If the accident had happened 15 miles north in Massachusetts, the man would probably have been arrested for driving without a license, which carries a fine of up to $1,000 and 10 days in jail, then released pending an appearance in district court.

But in Rhode Island, illegal immigrants face a far greater penalty: deportation.

No one seemed to be bothered by this before. Maybe it's okay when a blue state does it. The Administration is trying to shore up its support among Hispanics, who were formerly a very solid voting bloc. But Hispanic voters are dispirited of late, as the Administration has done nothing to push immigration reform (see: amnesty). The President's recent speech urging such reform is part of that strategy. Typically, the President neglected to actually offer any actual legislative text.

I think the President and his people are more worried about 2012 than 2010. The President may be able to win Hispanics back, but right now the peril is felt by Western Democrats. The Justice Department lawsuit is not going to do them any good. From the Politico:

The suit could, of course, help boost turnout among Hispanic voters in key areas across the West. And stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric could turn off independent voters. Yet many foresee a midterm electorate featuring an energized Republican base — for whom the immigration issue has emerged as a priority — prompting moderate white Western voters who are concerned about jobs to decamp to the GOP at least in the short term, political observers said.

"This is a tough issue for Democrats," said former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, a Democrat who is co-director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver. "Politically, I just can't think of any place in the West where this is going to play well."

But at least one thing is going well for the Democrats: public support for the health care reform legislation has never been higher. Right now approval and disapproval of the plan are dead even! Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that almost no one has been talking about it for several months. That insight, in turn, might have something to do with this decision, reported in the New York Times:

President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the "recess appointment" was needed to carry out the new health care law. The law calls for huge changes in the two programs, which together insure nearly one-third of all Americans.

This step avoids the nasty business of Congressional scrutiny, which will help keep the reform out of the papers and away from the public consciousness.

Well, there are two pieces of the Administration's 2010 election strategy. It's hard not to think that the Democrats think that the first two years of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, have been a political disaster.

Comments

[BillW]

"Is it really illegal for a state to enforce federal law when the Federal Government is failing to do so? The Justice Department is, in effect, asking the Courts to block enforcement of duly enacted Federal Law that the Fed doesn't want to see enforced."

The problem is that this is simply not a true statement. The federal government does quite a bit to enforce the immigration laws in Arizona and elsewhere, and anyone who has seen the Border Patro presence there knows that to be true. The same with employment law enforcement. E-Verify is proof of Federal enforcement.

Has the federal government's enforcement effort been effective? Obviously not, but that is a different question. If the federal government is making no effort to enforce the law, a state may well have the right - even an obligation - to act. But when we allow states to act based on a local opinion that federal efforts are insufficient or not effective enough we head down a very dangerous and very slippery slope.

Should the state of South Dakota be allowed to enact a law tasking every government official with conducting a federal tax audit of every white person over the age of 40 who is pulled over for a traffic violation because (1) it is the opinion of the state legislature that the IRS does a wholly inadequate job of catching tax cheats, and (2) white folks over 40 are the prime demographic of tax evaders?

Take it to the extreme - should the governor of South Daota be allowed to call up the National Guard and deploy them to Afghanistan because he believes the federal government has a flawed strategy and the military is doing an inept job and thereby putting South Dakotans at risk of terrorist attack?

In fact, the immigration question is complicated, and simple-minded solutions - either amnesty for everyone or deploying the Army and building a Great Wall - or political grandstanding like the Arizona immigration law that Jan Brewer has used masterfully to save her rancid political bacon - are the solutions of folks who either don't really understand the situation, or do not want to deal with the difficulties involved in solving the problem.

[KB]

Bill: I'll leave tax audits to someone who knows more about that, but Rhode Island's policy of asking for a driver's license and reporting someone who apparently has no documentation to federal authorities doesn't seem to me like an offense to the Constitution or to Natural Rights.

Do you really believe that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to enforce immigration laws? I don't, and neither does anyone else so far as I can tell. Arizona's law is very much in accord with Rhode Island's law, and no one bothered with the latter until now.

I think everyone knows what to do about this problem. We need to bring the borders under control. We need to put the large illegal population on the road to citizenship or deportation. We need to secure a steady but controlled immigration rate, as our economy requires. The reason we can't do any of these things is that the issue splits both parties. Business interests love illegal immigration because it means cheap labor. The left loves it because it swells their constituencies.

Obama is suing Arizona for one simple reason. He has given up on the right and the middle in this coming election, and is trying desperately to re-energize the left. That was my point.

[BillW]

C’mon Ken, you can do better than to simply recite the FOX News narrative. The Arizona law is the same as the Rhode Island law that has gone unchallenged? If that were true, then why would the AP run the following story a month or so ago:

“Rhode Island State Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, saying that he’s “fed up,” and “we’re all under attack” by illegal immigrants, has filed a bill mirroring a controversial Arizona law that is considered the toughest immigration legislation in the country.

Palumbo’s bill, like the Arizona law, gives local police more authority to question and arrest illegal immigrants. It makes failure to carry immigration documents a state crime, and requires police to question people “where reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. The bill, H 8142, also targets people who hire illegal immigrants, or who knowingly transport them.

Much of Palumbo’s bill is taken verbatim from the Arizona bill, SB 1070, signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer last month, over the objection of President Obama. It would put in place far stricter controls than Palumbo’s previous unsuccessful attempts, or Governor Carcieri’s controversial 2008 executive order cracking down on illegal immigration.”

Why don’t you give the Brown County Sheriff’s office a call and ask them what the drill is when they pull someone over for one reason or another, then find probable cause to believe they are illegally in the United States? I am quite sure you will find that they toss them in the pokey and call INS. The folks at INS then deal with them. No special law is needed on the books in South Dakota … or in Arizona … or in Rhode Island to do the same. Rhode Island codified that process – unnecessarily – to make political hay with the populace, to create the illusion of being tough on illegal immigration.

[BillW]

In fact, the current Rhode Island law has significant differences from the Arizona law, and from any other state law on the books anywhere. Vaguely defined ‘probable cause’ makes detaining someone and investigating their citizenship status mandatory. What will constitute probable cause? Lack of identification combined with a Mexican racial profile would do it – right? Get caught breaking a traffic law, with no government issued ID, looking Mexican, speaking with a Spanish accent … that is exactly the sort of profile the Arizona law intends for the local constable to investigate.

So if you or I are visiting Arizona and we decide to go out for an early morning jog wearing sweat pants with no pocket – no place for a wallet – and to keep the run going we ignore a walk/don’t walk light. No one will have ‘probable cause’ to believe that either of us are illegal immigrants, so we get the jaywalking ticket and life goes on.

My stepson does the same, however, and it is a different story. You see he was born and raised in Mexico and he looks and sounds the part. When he is caught jaywalking he will sit in the back of the police car for a while why they crank up computers and check out his story – at best. He more likely will be hauled down to the police station and sit for a few hours until someone has time to investigate. If it were to happen in some small town with a redneck cop he could sit in jail for a day or two until the investigation is complete.

I have a real problem with that, Ken, and not just because he is my stepson and the Arizona law puts him at particular risk that my American looking, American born and raised kids, or you and your family don’t face. My real problem with it is that my Mexican born and raised, Mexican looking, Mexican sounding stepson happens to be a US citizen and a highly decorated staff sergeant in the US Army Airborne who has done two tours of duty in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. The notion that he has to sit in the back of a police car while someone decides whether he is American enough because he looks and sounds different is an abomination. It stands the principle that all men are created equal on its ear, and it means that he is not entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the same degree you and I are. In fact, 30% of the troops serving in the Middle East are at risk of being detained on the streets of Arizona in the country they are risking their lives to defend if they do not carry identification with them.
Do you think that wouldn’t happen? The Arizona law dictates that it has to happen that way. Simply letting a Mexican looking/sounding person without ID go is not an option the law gives to the police. Lock us all up if we are not carrying the right papers – or don’t lock any of us up. But the Arizona law as it stands is an affront to us all.

[William]

BillW - While I sympathize with your situation, it seems to me that it's largely the result of the Federal Government's failure to secure the border that's brought us to a situation where legal immigrants are being pitted against IL-legal immigrants as a matter of political policy. It's wrong, it's disgusting and it's currently the official policy of the US government to create and inflame a racially charged issue in an attempt to garner votes.

A reasonably secure border would allow a rational debate on border security and immigration that the country desperately needs to have. Until the border IS reasonably secure, a serious debate is drowned out in hysteria and hyperbole.

The legality of Rhode Island's policies has already been deemed upheld in court. Just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

More on this here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg=

[BillW]

William,
My son is not a “legal immigrant”. He is not an immigrant of any kind. He is a United States citizen and has been from the moment he entered this world. He is the son of a US citizen who happened to be living abroad when he was born. His grandmother is a former Rose Bowl queen from Monrovia, California and his grandfather served in US army intelligence listening in on the Soviets at the Berlin wall. His great-great-great grandfather was Abraham Lincoln’s best man at his wedding. He is a graduate of Aberdeen High, an all-state soccer player who probably delivered pizza to Ken. He is a decorated soldier in the fight against terrorism whose claim to being an American is every bit the equivalent of yours.
The law you see as unavoidable and justified will put him at risk for arrest and detention solely because of the color of his skin and the accent in his speech, while you are exempt yourself from it by the nature of your ethnicity. How dare you presume to take away the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that you enjoy from another American who is your equal by any measure?
You say the starting point is to secure the border, yet you support the Arizona law, which starts by harassing and taking the rights from US citizens based on their ethnicity on the streets of Phoenix? That doesn’t secure the border. Those who understand the border solely though Fox News and the National Review can rationalize it any way they want to but when they support Arizona’s law they condone racism. History will not judge them well. Throughout our past every wave of immigration has been met with bigoted resistance, from the Chinese, Jews, Italians, and Eastern Europeans to the Irish who ‘need not apply’. Here we go again with Mexicans.