In this corner, weighing in at a population of roughly 6.6 million, covering an area of 114,000 square miles and home to one of the hottest metropolitan areas in the world, is the immigration sensation, the Grand Canyon destination – it’s the state of Arizona. And the challenger, called by many the greatest nation on Earth, a superpower among superpowers, with a population of more than 300 million, stretching from sea to shining sea, home of tackle football and McDonalds—it’s the United States of America.
And now, Michael Buffer, if you’d please? “Let’s get ready to rumble!”
It might not be a boxing match, but it is a fight, nonetheless. And both sides aren’t backing down.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona, challenging the state’s new immigration law on the grounds that the law interferes with federal immigration statutes.
“Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws,” Brewer responded in a written statement released the day of the filing.
Both fighters are obviously well prepared to enter the ring. In their arsenal of arguments, each side has a knockout punch ready to be unleashed.
Brewer already threw a jab at the DOJ’s suit—a punch that was felt not by Attorney General Eric Holder, but by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
On Thursday, a White House journalist asked Gibbs a question Brewer stresses in her written statement: Why has the president asked the DOJ to file a suit against Arizona, and not against “local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law.”
“I don’t know the answer to that, but I will try to seek some, uh, some answer on, uh, some answer on that,” Gibbs stuttered on Fox News.
In 1996, the federal government passed a law making it illegal for city governments to ban reporting a person’s immigration status to federal authorities. Some cities and states, like New York City, have “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies when it comes to questioning immigration status of people seeking government services, according to the LA Times.
While some of these policies are unwritten, and therefore can’t be challenged, Brewer’s question is a valid one and deserves an answer.
One point Brewer.
While it seems Arizona’s immigration law was passed solely with the intent of curbing the influx of illegal immigrants, there is a particular kind of immigrant Senate Bill 1070 would cause problems for, according to the DOJ injunction.
“Federal law provides a variety of humanitarian options for aliens—including unlawfully present aliens,” the brief states. It goes on to say that illegal immigrants who apply for asylum are often in the United States waiting for their application to be verified, “though the federal government is aware of the alien’s presence, has decided against removing the alien.”
Would enough communication exist between federal and state law enforcement to ensure asylum seekers aren’t wrongfully detained? We hope so, but mistakes do happen.
One point DOJ.
As the court proceedings draw closer and America awaits a verdict, we at The State Press hope the court fight doesn’t draw attention away from the real issue at hand: fixing our nation’s immigration system.
Both Brewer and President Barack Obama have voiced concern on the matter. The only difference is that Brewer and the rest of Arizona did something about it.
“Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds,” Brewer said in her statement. “These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.”
How true. Two points Brewer.
