The federal government has officially filed suit against the state of Arizona and Jan Brewer, in her official capacity as governor. In addition, there are six other suits brought by various entities that are currently pending. The American Bar Assoc. has filed an amicus brief against the state, urging the federal district court in Arizona to block enforcement of the law. In addition, there are lawsuits being brought by the ACLU, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, the League of United Latin American Citizens and a group of Tuscon police officers, who claim they cannot enforce the law without racial profiling.
The most insulting suit, and one which appears to be in direct conflict with Amendment XI of the Constitution is a suit being brought against the state by the government of Mexico. That's right, Calderon and his corrupt cronies are jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon (via Jurist.org):
claiming a substantial interest in ensuring its "bilateral diplomatic relations" with the US remain "transparent, consistent and reliable, and not frustrated by the actions of individual US states." The government also claims an interest in ensuring that its citizens are "accorded human and civil rights when present in the US in accordance with federal immigration law."
No doubt their handing out maps of the desert to potential illegal immigrants back in 2005 was instrumental in "ensuring diplomatic relations". Not to mention their demands for human and civil rights in our immigration laws are laughable, considering their own laws. Put bluntly, the Mexican government wants to keep our borders open and unenforced so that their poor will come here and relieve them of the burden, while at the same time sending billions of American dollars back to Mexico - the country's second largest source of income.
Is it possible for Gov. Brewer to counter-sue the Mexican government for invasion, and demand repayment for the burden their illlegals are putting on the state?
In addition to those suits, the DoJ has also announced that they will file another suit if, once the law goes into effect on July 29th, there is evidence of racial profiling. The interesing thing about this threat is that racial profiling was the number one reason the administration gave for striking down the law. And yet, in their original brief, it isn't even mentioned - the brief is all about the supremacy of federal laws over state laws. It seems as though the DoJ is playing politics on this one, screaming to the high heavens about profiling so that it gets stuck in the minds of voters, even though there is no proof. In fact, the federal law is less strict in their requirements to ensure against profiling. But this administration has been attempting to stop all immigration enforcement in Arizona by using the racial profiling angle almost since the beginning, with little result.
All of these lawsuits are rather reminiscent of another attempt to force the submission of a foe to the progressive agenda - Sarah Palin. That campaign of litigation was successful, forcing her to step down as governor for two reasons - her inability to perform her duties as governor due to having to prepare and defend herself and her administration from numerous frivolous lawsuits and the cost incurred to the state and herself to defend against those suits. She should not have stepped down, because that decision, no matter the reasons for it, will haunt her for the rest of her life. It also, unfortunately, showed that the tactic of submission through litigation can be a winner.
The success of the legal campaign against Palin sets the precedence to resort to the same tactics to force Arizona into submission. The time Governor Brewer and her staff will have to devote to preparing and arguing against the lawsuits will divert her attention from the important needs of the state. In addition, Arizona, like many states, is suffering under the prolonged recession gripping the country. They have a budget deficit for 2010 of $1.5 billion. 2011's outlook is even worse, at $3.4 billion. Add in the boycotts and the costs of defending these lawsuits, and it is obvious to see that Arizoona is in a difficult position. A position, it seems, that is being used to maximum effect by the DoJ and other opposition entities.
With each new lawsuit, the resemblance to the efforts to destroy Palin becomes clearer and clearer. Except this time, it is an entire state that is being effected. It's reprehensible, especially in light of the fact that a majority of Americans support the legislation. A majority of Americans would also like to see the federal lawsuit dropped. Even Arizona democrats are begging the administration to stop this dog and pony show.
If adherence to federal law was such a priority to this administration, why are they not suing Rhode Island, which has had a similar law on the books for years, and has been enforcing it without issue. Or how about the so-called 'sanctuary cities', such as San Francisco, who flaunt their disobedience of federal immigration laws quite blatantly? This particularly sticks in my craw, because they are obviously in violation of federal laws, but have yet to be reprimanded in any way, shape or form, and their policies are costing taxpayers billions.
Considering how often we are lectured by President Obama and Eric Holder about this being a country of laws, it is interesting how selective they are in their enforcement of them.
Holder is insisting that politics have no weight in his decision to pursue litigation against Arizona, but all of the facts point to politics being exactly the reason why. Governor Brewer is not backing down because the safety of her citizens outweigh the threat of federal lawsuits. She is not alone in this - the legal defense fund she set up to fight the federal suit has already collected half a million dollars in contributions ($330,000 of which was donated after the DoJ announced their suit).
Sarah Palin had a total of 27 lawsuits filed against her in the year after her VP nomination (26 of which were dismissed). So far, in less than three months, Arizona and Brewer have accrued seven suits. No doubt there will be more. This is, of course, another lesson in Alinsky's ethics of means and ends (number 10):
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
The moral garments, in this case, is their assertion that the law is racist in that it will promote racial profiling. The fact that racial profiling wasn't added to the suit indicates that those allegations are merely window dressing, used to incite anger and opposition to the law and legitimize the federal stance.
The attempts to palinize Brewer and Arizona in order to keep the borders open and unsecured might not succeed. The Arizona law mirrors federal immigration law, and, since the feds have given up enforcing it, the state has a right to protect itself from the flood of illegals. Brewer - unlike Palin, who expected to go back to life as usual after the election - knew she was going to face a fight, and she is ready for it. She threw down the gauntlet when she signed the bill, and seems to be relishing the fight.
It's awful hard to litigate into submission when the target is telling you to bring it on. Something tells me this palinization isn't going to be as easy as the last....
UPDATE: Politico has just come out with an article profiliing the nearly two dozen lawsuits piling up against Arizona:
“I’m not in a position to [speak to] the motivation of others, but there does seem to be an excessive number of lawsuits,” said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, one of more than two dozen plaintiffs involved in a class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs in that suit, Friendly House v. Whiting, are represented by a platoon of 35 attorneys from a diverse coalition of organizations that includes the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Service Employees International Union, the Muslim American Society and the Japanese American Citizens League.