Why doesn't Obama sue DuPage County for enforcing immigration laws?

OAKLAND, CA - APRIL 30: Activists carry signs and flags in protest of Arizona's new immigration law during a rally at Oakland City Hall April 30, 2010 in Oakland, California. Dozens of people were marching in protest of Arizona state bill 1070 which was signed into law this past week and gives law enforcement officials unprecedented authority to stop and question suspected illegal immigrants. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

If it is unconstitutional and odious for state and local cops to
enforce federal immigration laws, then why hasn't the Obama
administration sued dozens of Chicago collar counties and towns to stop
them from doing it?

Suburban counties and some major suburbs here
check the immigration status of anyone who has been booked, even for
minor crimes. Even more surprising, this is done under the blessing and
encouragement of ... the Obama administration.

The so-called 287(g)
program allows local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration
status through an extensive Department
of Homeland Security
database of anyone who has been incarcerated
and to hold anyone who has an immigration problem.

and Customs Enforcement calls the program, authorized under the Immigration
and Nationality Act, just "one component under (an) umbrella of
services and programs offered for assistance to local law enforcement
officers." ICE says the program allows state and local law enforcement
agencies to give federal agencies valuable assistance by preventing
"criminal aliens" from being released back into the community.

at least 67 state and local law enforcement agencies have signed up for
the controversial program, including those in Lake, McHenry, DuPage,
Will and Kane counties, and the department hopes to expand it nationwide
within three years.

So, obviously, the idea of state
and local cops helping enforce federal immigration laws is not in itself
unconstitutional in the eyes of the Obama administration. Then why is
it suing Arizona?
The administration, to justify this obvious inconsistency, can point to
a difference in the Arizona law and the 287(g) program: The latter
applies to those already incarcerated. The Arizona law gives state and
local police the discretion to check immigration status before arrest
and incarceration.

That's not much of a difference upon which to
base a constitutional challenge. But if that's the difference that the
Obama administration uses to explain why it's suing Arizona but not
participants in the 287(g) program, then it ought to explain why it
treats Arizona and Rhode
differently. Rhode Island handles illegal immigrants the
same as would the Arizona law, but Obama is suing only Arizona. Rhode
Island state troopers routinely check the immigration status of drivers
who are stopped for traffic violations and other minor offenses, as
would the Arizona law.

But Attorney General Eric
and the White
have issued no condemnations of Rhode Island. No lawsuits
have been threatened or filed against Rhode Island. How can this be? Raw
politics. Arizona is Republican; Rhode Island is Democratic.

Obama administration was joined by Philadelphia
Mayor Michael Nutter in explaining why states can't help enforce
federal immigration laws: "We should not have a patchwork of immigration
policy for every state. ... That's insane."

What's insane is the
Obama administration's uneven and hypocritical application of the law
and the 10th Amendment, which says: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." If the
federal government chooses not to exercise its powers, does it forfeit
that power to states and the people? If the political party controlling Washington
fails to enforce immigration laws, are states that are unduly burdened
required to sit mute?

As the immigration battle illustrates, the
reach of federal powers may be the country's most perplexing issue. Can a
state overrule federal law by legalizing same-sex marriages? Should gun
control or regulation of medicinal marijuana be a state or a federal
power? Should abortion
policies be set by democratic debate at the state level, as it did
prior to Roe v. Wade -- the U.S.
Supreme Court
decision that legalized abortion? Can Cook County and
establish their own immigration policies by declaring
their jurisdictions "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants?

years, the 10th Amendment -- a part of the Bill of Rights designed to
protect individuals from federal abuses -- has been regarded as the
Constitution's appendix, ignored until it becomes troublesome. But the
10th Amendment can no longer be ignored. We're in for a blizzard of 10th
Amendment cases, including whether the federal government can require
every American to buy health insurance. Arizona is just the start.

For additional reading, check out the posts to this column, which also was published in the Chicago Tribune.

Here's one:

wedriscoll at 9:28 PM July 12, 2010

I've been wondering about the double standard
as well.  The claim is that the Arizona law usurps Federal Law, while
all it really does is provide for state enforcment of an existing
Federal law, so they are suing.  Yet there is an existing Federal Law
that REQUIRES local authorities to cooperate with ICE, but the Federal
Government hasn't felt that sanctuary policies in areas like Chicago and
Cook County that forbid such cooperation were an issue.  Letting the
DOJ pick and choose which constitutional violations it chases after
makes the government action sure seem to politically motivated, but this
fact is ignored, but when Bush "played politics" with Federal
Attorneys, everyone was screaming for his head, but Obama uses the AG to
file suits based on the party that made the rules, and everyone
applauds him.


Leave a comment
  • Excellent points, Mr. Byrne.

  • Obama should sue DuPage and Rhode Island. Having local cops enforce national immigration laws is a waste of tax payer money and damages public safety.

    When good people fear the police we all lose...

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Categories

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • good websites and also web traffic from the tool disabled with www.wifikillpro.com simple overview for Obtain Complete Information about great.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • good while also being more efficient at the workplace. IMO App also every one else in your circle remain in one nice.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • good completely change that idea, yet it does make it greatly simpler to slackdownloadapp Android alone as well as those with both…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to jnorto:
      Gee, thanks for your help. But I posted the link in the first paragraph.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • good to need download vshare application apk in diffrent manner. http://vsharedownloadpro.com Its more reliable to utilize nice.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: