Why are conservative Constitutional "scholars" against the Justice Dept suing Az defending the Constitution?
From Lozano v. Hazleton:
"Under federal law there are two types of immigration enforcement:
border enforcement, which is keeping unauthorized persons from entering
the country; and interior enforcement, which is distinguishing between legal
and undocumented immigrants already in the country and removing the
latter. (N.T. 3/15/07 at 14). In interior enforcement, officials must strike a
balance between finding and removing undocumented immigrants without
accidently removing immigrants and legal citizens, all without imposing too
much of a burden on employers and workers. (Id. at 15). Too stringent of
an enforcement system will result in the wrongful removal of United States
citizens and legal immigrants. (Id.) United States foreign relations is
affected by the manner in which the balance is struck. Excessive
enforcement jeopardizes our alliances and cooperation with regard to
matters such as immigration enforcement, drug interdiction and counter
terrorism investigations. (Id. at 16-17). Accordingly, the United States
political system places the responsibility for striking this balance with the
United States Congress and the executive branch."
States, like Arizona, cannot mirror federal law, cannot have their own laws, cannot do anything with immigration. That's the Constitutional interpretation held by the judge in Lozano v. Hazleton, the 3rd Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court (which declined the chance to overturn the ruling of the lower courts).
Now the Justice Department is trying to do their job in defending the Constitution, or at least its current interpretation (which is what they are supposed to do).
Why don't you Conservative, anti-illegal immigrant Constitutional experts want the Justice Department doing their job?