Obama's restive Democrats
The political risks of Obama's lawsuit against the Arizona immigration measure
Obama's restive Democrats
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The Obama administration has solid policy reasons for challenging the new Arizona law that targets illegal immigrants. But the long-awaited Justice Department lawsuit, filed yesterday, may well be a political nightmare for several Arizona Democrats - as well as centrist Democratic incumbents elsewhere - who currently hold House seats and hope to keep them in November.
As expected, the lawsuit - which seeks to derail the hardline Arizona measure before it takes effect on July 29 - rightly declares that only the feds can set immigration policy. As the lawsuit points out, "Under our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters."
This is factually correct. The U.S. Constitution decrees that Congress has the power "to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization," and says elsewhere that the Constitution "shall be the Supreme Law of the Land," trumping state laws. And as I mentioned here a few months ago, the courts have long recognized the federal preeminence on immigration matters. A federal court threw out the mid-'90s California referendum that denied social services to illegal immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a 1975 Texas law that had denied public education to the children of illegals. A federal court threw out a Hazelton, Pennsylvania law that had made it difficult for illegals to rent housing.
Moreover, the Obama administration wants to send a message to other states that might be contemplating similar laws; as the suit notes, the Constitution doesn't permit "a patchwork of state and local immigration policies" - particularly draconian measures that might trigger "the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens." As Walter Dellinger, a former acting U.S. Solicitor General, remarked yesterday in an email to The New Republic, "whether suing is good politics or not (is) beside the point...In my view, the Justice Department had no choice but to bring this suit."
OK, that's the policy argument. It has merit. But Dellinger was right when he suggested that suing is bad politics.
The short-term problem for the Democrats is that the lawsuit itself is politically risky. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll reports that 58 percent of Americans support the Arizona law - and, significantly, that 57 percent of independents think the states "should be allowed to make and enforce their own immigration laws." Independents have generally cooled toward Obama lately; their votes will be crucial this November, especially in swing districts now held by vulnerable Democrats.
In the '10 congressional elections, the battle for power in the House may hinge on a handful of swing seats. Several of the imperiled Democratic seats are in Arizona. Those incumbents are not particularly happy today, given the fact they they've been forced to make a choice: Defend the Obama lawsuit and risk ticking off their swing voters (who strongly support the Arizona law); or assail the lawsuit, throw Obama under the bus, and risk ticking off Hispanics and the liberals in their voting base.
Actually, they've already made the choice. Seeking to maximize their survival prospects this fall, they're speedily distancing themselves from the lawsuit, from Obama, from the national Democratic party, from the city of Washington, apparently from anything that would remind their voters that they actually hold office.
Case in point: Harry Mitchell, the centrist congressional Democrat who represents the district encompassing the suburbs east of Phoenix. It's a GOP-leaning district; voters backed George W. Bush (handily) in the '04 presidential race, and John McCain (narrowly) in the '08 race. Mitchell became a freshman thanks to the Democratic wave of 2006 and he was reelected two years later, albeit underwhelmingly. Here's some of what Mitchell said yesterday, regarding the lawsuit:
"This is the wrong direction to go...Arizona needs Washington to take action, but a lawsuit is definitely not the kind of action we need...The federal government has a responsibility to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system, but hasn't done so...Washington still doesn't get it...While the president acknowledged last week that Arizonans are justifiably fed up with inaction, filing a lawsuit is counterproductive...Arizonians are tired of the grandstanding. Political posturing on this issue has to end."
Colloquial translation: "Washington is the enemy. I have nothing to do with Washington, never heard of the place. Obama is the enemy. He's grandstanding and politically posturing. If he shows up in Arizona to campaign for me, I intend to have the flu that day."
One of Mitchell's Arizona Democratic colleagues, freshman Ann Kirkpatrick, released her own statement yesterday, saying in part: "This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand...Washington failed us on this issue again today, and Arizonans have had enough. The White House and Congress need to start developing a better approach to border security and immigration reform, working with us instead of against us."
Mitchell and Kirkpatrick clearly hope that the swing voters back home will hear their "secure the border" message, because that's a visceral imperative. Yet they also hope that the Hispanic and liberal voters hear their message about the need for "reform," about fixing "the broken immigration system," because that can be interpreted as their desire for a path-to-citizenship policy...which, by the way, has no chance of being enacted this year or in any foreseeable year. Even George W. Bush tried to get that enacted (much to his credit), only to be thwarted by conservatives in his own party. Mitchell and Kirkpatrick have a free pass on calling for a comprehensive Washington solution, because they know darn well that nothing will be solved.
What a mess. In the absence of long-term coherent policy, there is only short-term political positioning. A Washington Democratic strategist told a reporter the other day that, on the immigration issue, vulnerable incumbents such as Mitchell and Kirkpatrick "need to work hard to address the needs and interests of their constituents."
Colloquial translation: "Vulnerable Democrats are on their own. If they need to trash Obama in order to save their skins, fine."
I'm just wondering. When a big-tent party has so many restive campers, is that a harbinger of trouble ahead?
Big tent party is a big myth. If you don't fit into every liberal way of thinking you are either a racist or a imbecile. Thankfully America is seeing that truth more clearly each and every day with each and every loony action of this failing president.
As long as you realize that the big zero that the GOP brings to the table, tax cuts for the rich and welfare for corporations not people, you can have a big tent with disagreements. as long as you remind people the mistake in letting the other party govern. Regan, Bush, Bush = rich get richer and the middle class struggle even greater. Look no further than NJ. Christie declined to get rid of the millionares tax break, he is making up for it with enforcing driving violations and cutting school budgets. Essentially tazing the middle and lower class (99% of all people are in this group) and taking education away from our children. The rich wall street types that live in Princeton, Jersey city, Hoboken, and the other rich burbs around Philly and NYC don't care about a $300 speeding ticket or public schools. Thats chump change.— Atlas- The democratic party is controlled by extremists. It continues to push moderates out. There is no room in it for any moderate voices.— CD75
- I'm no immigration lawyer,but I'm not as sure as DP that this law will get thrown out the way CA's and Hazelton's was. The AZ law really doesn't conflict at all with federal immigration laws, nor does it deprive illegals of benefits,like CA's did, or make landlords the enforcers, like Hazelton's did, as I recall. There's a good argument that the AZ law does nothing more that compliment the federal immigration laws. Should be interesting. Dellinger's correctl that politically the suit will hurt Ds. Which is fine with me.— pj katauskas
- CD, you wouldn't know a moderate if you saw one. Spock, your comment has no basis in fact, so you spout inflammatory insults at the only party trying (poorly) to work for the citizenry. PJ, the Constitution is specific. Let's see how the judicial activists on the bench deal with it. My guess is Republicans in the lower courts will uphold it despite their claims to support the Constitution. After that, the Democrats could swing the conversation their way by pointing out how Republicans turn small issues into big wastes of money, though the Democrats will never attack the Republicans like they should. Hence, why I wouldn't vote for Obama again. Not nearly liberal enough, nor does he have the stones to point out the failures of the Republican party.— HandNik
Listen to who's quoting the Constitution all of a sudden.— jmc- You'll also notice a liberal will quote the Constitution to protect the power of the federal government, but never the rights of the citizens.— jmc
Comment removed.- Obama admin is a mess. Berwick is a crazy choice for health care leader as he supports redistribution of wealth in healthcare to equalize it!!! The Admin needs to support Arizona in assisting to stop the drug smugglers and illegals crossing into Arizona not suing Arizona. They botched the cleanup efforts in the Gulf with BP... they needed to tell BP to get whatever resources needed in their to stop the flow of oil... instead Obama tried to kill the oil drilling industry! This is what happens when a President has no clue... he will pay a heavy price in November. We need to extend the Bush tax cuts but Obama will let them expire even though it will result in a possible economic depression. Our country is in deep trouble and we must stop the Obama administration through protests and at the voter booth.— BFlint
- Any one here think Arizona law supports racial profiling? If so, please get out of our country.— BFlint
- Hand, fyi, the case is before a single federal district court judge, not judges, and she happens to be a Clinton appointee. That's probably a plus for BO and company. And any ruling she makes would be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is ridiculously liberal, another plus for BO. But the 9th is often reversed by the SCOTUS.— pj katauskas
- Hand wrote: "though the Democrats will never attack the Republicans like they should." You must be kidding. Were you alive and paying attention during the Bush administration?— pj katauskas
- If you don't fit into every (liberal/conservative) way of thinking you are either a (insert colorful noun) or a (insert colorful noun. It works both ways, unfortunately. Liberals, you think conservatives are racist extremists. Conservatives, you think liberals are socialist extremists. And if you are a moderate, conservatives AND liberals think you're indecisive at best and hate America at worst. ... Great country we have, isn't it? We should all be proud. (HTML deleted)— HeywoodEm
- Comment removed.
- On a question as important as immigration it is important to have a nationwide, even handed approach to the problem where we go after the employers as hard or harder than the immigrants. If there are no jobs the incentive to come here illegally is diminished.— FormerGOPer
- "Notably, the feds aren't suing Arizona on equal protection grounds, despite Mr. Obama's repeated public and polarizing claims that the law could lead to racial profiling." From today's WSJ. That's because since the law hasn't been applied yet, there was no factual basis to make that claim in federal court. Fed Court Rules require that there be a good faith factual basis for all claims made in all court filings. BO didn't have any such basis. Of course, no such rules apply to political claims.— pj katauskas
- Couldn't agree with you more, Former.— pj katauskas
- BFlint: I think it encourages racial profiling. I'm not going anywhere.— p-diddy
The big problem with Justice Department's premise is that Arizona's law simply isn't creating immigration policy. Arizona will simply refer suspected illegal immigrants to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for processing. This isn't setting policy but simply enforcing the existing federal law. The Obama administration has stated they may simply refuse to process any detainees from Arizona because it would effect their priorities and create to much of a burden on the staff. One has to wonder at the lunacy of those running our government. Robbing banks is also a federal offense. I wonder, does the justice department have a set number of bank robbers they're prepared to handle beyond which they'll simply refuse to process them? The nation is in the very worst of hands.- BO wants all the illegals legalized so they can vote for him in '12 cause he know white folk are fed up with him.
- Lord,that's right. And I say let the feds take the heat for refusing to process referrals under the AZ law, especially at at time when, what, 60%, of Americans support the law. And I guess p-diddy has a crystal, since there's no way of knowing until the law goes into effect whether it encourages racial profiling. In fact, as I noted above, BO didn't make that claim in his court complaint.— pj katauskas
- Of course, I meant crystal ball not crystal meth.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- As pjk studiously pointed out, the avenue for overturning AZ's law is lined with progressive judges. Knowing that this case is ultimately going to SCOTUS, implementation will be delayed indefinitely. Mission accomplished!— lefty
- Comment removed.
- If anyone is questioned or pulled over by the police they need to show ID. Anyone of us could be detained until they can verify our identity. The so called "draconian" law only requires proof of ID, which is just common sense. Can we sue the government for not enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books?— egmetzjr
- bag o cheese: "27% of the nation's prison population are illegal aliens" You were close. It's actually under 2%, which means that illegals are incarcerated at a rate lower than one would expect (they are estimated to be 3-4% of the population). That erroneous number came from a 2006 Lou Dobbs show. It referred to federal inmates only, and included all non-citizens, whether here legally or not. And of those that were in federal prisons that were here illegally, about half were in prison solely because they were here illegally - they were not charged with any other criminal activity.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Actually still_independent, you are also not correct. The actual quote from Lou Dobbs, as printed in the New York Times, was that "One-third of the inmates now serving time in federal prisons come from some other country — one-third.”, which he stated on his November 4, 2003 program. The actual figure, according to the DOJ, was 27% in 2000, 24% in 2003, and 20% in 2005 of the population in federal prisons were non-citizens. Also according to the DOJ, combining federal and state prisons, 6.4% of all prisoners in 2005 were non-citizens. However, the problem comparing this on a national is the vast discrepancy of the illegal immigrant problem among states. Surely you would admit that comparing the illegal immigrant prison population of Arizona and California to that of New Hampshire and Vermont is comparing apples and oranges. So when discussed on a national level, the results are skewed.— tom - wilmington, de
- Still_independent, your statistics are misleading. The crimes predominantly are in border states Gulf region, AZ, CA etal., where they're double digit.— lefty
- tom/lefty - I don't disagree with your general point (although lefty, I think your "double digits" is high, unless you have some sources for that). I agree that it can be an apples and oranges comparison. Obviously talking about the problem in VT bears little relation to the border states. I'll even go so far as to say that I am opposed to the lawsuit filed against AZ. I am (barely) OK with the law (as currently constituted, not as originally passed). But in no way, shape, or form was bag o cheese's statement that "27% of the nation's prison population are illegal aliens" remotely accurate.... And Tom, not that it really matters, but I'm referring to a correspondent (Christine Romans) on Lou Dobbs show in 2006, not Lou Dobbs himself. She said "According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 percent of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html— still_independent
- lefty: never mind. I found some stats, although 2004 is the best I could do. Two of the border states did indeed have percentages that just made it into the double digits, so based upon that, your statement was indeed accurate. Oddly enough, other non-border states with very large illegal populations show the opposite (illegals are "underrepresented" in prison)— still_independent
- "atlas" is obese....— will_wonders_never_cease
- 2 pieces analyzing democrats, a bit detached, a bit cool and analystical, but there they are. I get he feeling Dick's heart isnt into it.Not too worry, I can feel some passionate republican demonization coming, maybe even a much anticipated Sarah Palin or Teap Party bashing coming.— tr88
- DP should have at least mentioned the following, which I cut/pasted from the WSJ: "In De Canas v. Bica (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court considered a challenge to a California law barring employers from "knowingly employing" illegal aliens "if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers." Migrant farmworkers sued, claiming that the law was an unconstitutional intrusion into an area of federal jurisdiction. In an 8-0 decision written by Justice William Brennan, the court upheld the California law." BO doesn't have a slam dunk against the AZ law.— pj katauskas
- The GOP likes to say that Ohio is the mirror of “real” America – so ... let’s see what Real Americans/Ohioans are feeling these days: “52% of the undecideds in the Senate race disapprove of President Obama to 35% who like the job he's doing. They don't think much of the Democrats in Congress either- only 26% have a like the job they're doing. Those numbers might seem bad- but they pale in comparison to how negatively those voters feel about Congressional Republicans- only 10% approve of the job they're doing while 61% disapprove. So these voters are down on President Obama and the Democratic majority- but their most negatives feelings are toward the Republican minority. These are folks who normally would vote to 'throw the bums out.' But they think the alternative is even bigger bums. It'll be interesting to see how folks like this across the country end up voting this fall-and it could determine whether Democrats keep control of the House and a healthy majority in the Senate or not." Ruh-Roh Republicants!!!— CarmineDavito
- Two points. Gibbs was asked yesterday as to why the administration is suing Arizona for usurping the federal government's role in immigration, yet they are not suing the so-called "sanctuarty cities" which refuse to follow current federal law by turning over illegal immigrants to ICE. Naturally, Gibbs needed to check on that matter and will get back to the reporter...right, just like he did on the Sestak job offer. Second point, it amazes me how people throw out statistics as to approval of Republicans in Congress. Could it be that people disapprove of the job Republicans are doing because they have been unable to stop any of the unpopular and failed Democrat policies? And how can the party with no power please anyone since they, in reality until Scott Brown got elected, could do nothing?— tom - wilmington, de
- Two good points, tom. And I thought I read somewhere recently that Brown's approval ratings in Mass. surpass Kerry? Could that be right?— pj katauskas
- Good old Rhode Island. State troopers routinely ask anyone they assume might be in the country illegally for documentation. If none is presented they report/refer them to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (known as ICE). In the past few years RI has doubled the referrals to ICE. Even more interesting is that ICE has a 24-hour Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont that it urges local police departments to utilize. Now tell me again what the grounds are for Obama's lawsuit against AZ?
- Lord, thanks. I was not aware of those facts.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- Arizona passes a law on illegal immigration, they get sued by the Obama administration and accused of racial profiling. However, since 2008, Rhode Island has been doing by executive order exactly what Arizona wants to do by legislative action. Where is the lawsuit against Rhode Island? Where are the cries of racial profiling from a deep blue state in the North East? Why isn't Sheldon Whitehouse screaming from the floor of the Senate about the racist Rhode Island state troopers? Check out the story from the Boston Globe at http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/— tom - wilmington, de
- tom, just a point of clarification, but BO's suit didn't claim racial profiling/discrimination. It relied solely on federal preemption. Of course, BO and his henchmen made those racial claims in news conferences and talk shows before filing suit.— pj katauskas
- tom doesn't have a clue as to how politics in the US work. Or else he wouldn't post the same lame posts about the R's being the "minority" party. tom - look up just who is obstructing procedures in Congress - both chambers - since 2008. Go and Google what the GOP record for obstructing all Dem initiatives has been since 2008. The minority party can obstruct quite effectively when they fear monger - the Dems are bad at that. The R's are staking the 2010 mid term on obstructing every Dem plan, including any effective jobs bill. BTW - the GOP had SIGNIFICANT input in to the Finance Reform and HCR bills. It is why both are far weaker than necessary and much less than what the public wants.— CarmineDavito
- When you take the kids to the candy store and they start to go hog wild, adults have to say "No!" That's not obstruction. It's a form of leadership and exercising mature supervision. That's really what the Rs have been doing in response to BO's massive, and largely unpopular programs.— pj katauskas
- Why did the Ds in the Senate with BO's support ram through financial reform BEFORE the Financial Inquiry Commission completed its hearings and issued its report, you know the Commission BO appointed to investigate the causes of the financial crisis? Could it be that BO's appointment of that Commission, like most of his "leadership," is just optics? If I were a member of the Commission, I'd be insulted that BO and his Senate henchmen didn't wait for the Commission to complete its work before launching financial reform legislation.— pj katauskas
- PJ - For a traditional consumer of the news it is deeply disturbing how many facts never see the light of day. Those who consume news via the internet can ferret out these facts, but how is it possible that the Obama administration can telegraph this lawsuit for weeks and for the most part the editors and reporters in the mainstream media are wholly ignorant as to the operations of ICE and of other states that are taking the exact same law enforcement actions that AZ is taking?
- Lord, it's possible you are too kind by ascribing the msm's failure to cover the operations of ICE to igorance. Is it possible that the msm deliberately omitted any coverage of ICE ops because those ops undercut the almost universal opposition of the msm to the AZ law?— pj katauskas
- tom and Lord, or anyone, in fact, in light of the ICE ops described in RI and I assume other states, why did AZ feel the need to pass a state law, when they could have used the ICE process without a state law? Why stir up a firestorm of controversy if the same referral can be made without a separate state law?— pj katauskas
- The Dem's programs are NOT "largely unpopular". There is majority support for nearly all of them. It is the Republicans who VERY Largely have NO Support. You'd do yourself some good to check that our before spouting Fox rhetoric.— CarmineDavito
- A "traditional consumer of news" these days is most often willfully passive. For someone on the record as a lawyer, passivity when presented with "info" should be fatal. The internet does provide more than ample resources of FACT-BASED information for anyone not lazy enough to take the time to check it out. But too many people and deluded into thinking that partisan sources are unable to present factual reporting. That is the result of allowing a propaganda machine such as Fox to exist.— CarmineDavito
- PJ - I don't know the answer to your question. It may be due to the constitutions of each state and where the power resides setting law enforcement policy. The Boston Globe article mentioned that in MA the policy changed when the governorship went from Romney to Patrick (Patrick rescinded cooperation with ICE). Perhaps the governor doesn't have such power in AZ?
- Carmine, I don't watch Fox. I'm a CNNer, mostly. Why didn't DP at least mention the ICE ops in RI? Or the 1976 SCOTUS opinion upholding a CA law similar to AZ's law? Wouldn't that be FACT-BASED writing? Or do you believe DP is just lazy? He surely has "ample resources," wouldn't you think? And just to clarify, I did not describe myself as a "traditional consumber of news." I get my news from print, broadcast and Internet media, like almost everyone else I know. I don't know or care whether that makes me "traditional" or not. Lord's point is that the msm omits coverage that doesn't square with their mostly liberal leanings. I agree. You may not, and that's fine. Posts here, even fact-based ones like mine and other ultimately state opinions. And you should check, because as BOCare was about to be passed, it didn't enjoy majority support at the polls. That's what I meant by "largely" unpopular.— pj katauskas
- Lord, if as BO and company contend, the AZ law is preempted by the federal law, one would think that an action like Patrick's rescission would likewise be preempted by federal immigration laws. Does a governor have the authority not to enforce the law of the land?— pj katauskas
- bag of cheese: Where did you find that stat?— p-diddy
- The quickest response Arizona has ever gotten from Washington, after years of asking for help, is this lawsuit. Disgraceful.....— Phillysub
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
