I’m still reading through the Arizona immigration Supreme Court decision, but I expect that come Thursday, all of the Supreme Court discussion discussion will be about health care. So I’d like to get to the logical conclusion of Scalia’s dissent before that happens. It seems to me that if this is true, then it cuts both ways.
In his point-by-point defense of the Arizona legislation, the avowed law-and-order conservative surmised that the Obama administration “desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers.” He accused federal officials of “willful blindness or deliberate inattention” to the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona.
“[T]o say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia wrote. “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”
If a state has the right to, essentially do anything to keep anyone out, doesn’t another state have the right to keep anyone in? Or to make anyone a citizen? It seems to me if states can’t decide who is a citizen of the United States we can’t call them sovereign states. I guess that’s why we don’t.
So it seems to me if Scalia’s positions ever become the majority on the court, Washington should become a sanctuary state. We should let anyone become a citizen as long as they aren’t here to do us harm.