The New York Times editorial board will stop at nothing to defend illegal immigration - even if it means taking the Arizona Legislature to task for enforcing the law.
As the newspaper put it in its Wednesday editorial, "The Constitution Trumps Arizona," President Obama "can deny Arizona access to federal databases of immigration status and refuse to allow the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to cooperate with state officials in handling people detained under the law."
The New York Times writes that the Constitution would support the president's lawsuit against Arizona by defending Justice Hugo Black's interpretation of the Constitution in 1941. However, Justice Black would hardly have condoned the abdication of responsibility on the part of the federal government to enforce illegal immigration. Neither would he have defended a misguided policy that would have embraced illegal immigration for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.
As Abraham Lincoln once declared, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The White House lawsuit against the state of Arizona would likely have grave consequences for the United States - especially in a time of war. If the Obama administration were committed to enforcing illegal immigration as defined by the Constitution, the Arizona Legislature would not have followed its present course to enforce immigration law. Yet the administration apparently is less concerned about defending the rule of law than coveting the Hispanic vote. The facts speak for themselves.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.