Just a quick post during lunch. I was reading the news feeds and came across this story: U.S. seeks immediate stay of Alabama immigration law. Now, we all know that the administration would rather sue states than actually enforce the borders. But this “logic” struck me:
The Obama administration has already appealed her (District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn’s) ruling to the 11th Circuit, arguing that it interferes with the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. In addition to seeking a temporary stay pending appeal, the Justice Department asked that the case be expedited.
“News accounts confirm that the law is having its intended but impermissible consequences of driving aliens from the state,” the Justice Department said in its emergency stay request, adding that parents were already keeping their children home from school.
Not only did I have to emphasize that (twice), but I’ll repeat it again here, “the law is having its intended but impermissible consequences of driving aliens from the state”. So let me get this straight. The law is doing what the Alabama legislature intended it to do. But, because the state, and not the federal government, is behind the law the consequences are “impermissible”.
I think my head is going to explode.
Let me use an analogy. You’re trying to lose weight. You want to lose weight, your wife wants you to lose weight, your doctor wants you to lose weight. Even the First Lady wants you to lose weight. You start to eat less and you spend time playing in the yard with the kids. You start to lose weight. Great, right? Well, no. Michelle informs you that you haven’t been eating enough peas, and that playing with the kids isn’t the same as golfing. So, even though you hate peas and you don’t have time to golf your weight loss is determined to be impermissible.
Sure, my analogy is kind of stupid. But I believe I can make the case that it’s not as stupid as this stay request. What say you?