If the political pundits want to pin the recent wave of dissatisfaction with the Democrat party to an issue, failing to keep illegals out is one of them. The problem has gotten so bad that now, a federal judge has changed the meaning of the word immigration to include trespassing. If you illegally cross the border, you are trespassing. You are not immigrating. There are laws that regulate immigration, and illegally crossing the border isn’t one of them. Well, until now apparently.
A ruling Friday that struck down the state’s 2005 immigrant smuggling law marks the latest in a string of restrictions placed by the courts on Arizona’s effort to get local police to take action on illegal immigration. The smuggling law, like similar state statutes, was tossed because a judge concluded it conflicted with the federal government’s immigration powers.
Jonathan Paton, a former Republican lawmaker from Tucson who was one of the smuggling law’s top sponsors, said “It basically shows this administration has no intention to enforce its own laws or let the state enforce its laws.”
It’s unusual for Obama to pick someone he doesn’t know well for such a sensitive administration post. But at a time when Obama is under political fire, Lynch’s distance from the president could be an asset in the confirmation process.
She has a proven record of going after the bad guys. That’s good. The first test of the Republican majority will be evident in her confirmation process. To draw from Ms. Lynch whether she sees a difference between trespassing and immigration. It is obvious that the administration doesn’t see a difference. Lawmakers need to vet whether she sees Arizona as the bad guys for protecting its border and citizens, or as victims of an administration’s failure to enforce the law. Any sympathy for the ‘bad guys’ concept should, but won’t, be a disqualifier. The 2016 elections will have to fix that. And I’m not just talking about Democrats.