New York Blatantly Infringes on Federal Immigration Authority; Obama Administration Not Likely to Sue
If any further evidence was needed that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) suit to prevent full implementation of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law was about politics, rather than a principled defense of the federal government’s authority over immigration policy, it is made apparent by the Obama administration’s silence on the actions of the governor of New York.
In May, Gov. David A. Paterson appointed a special clemency panel to review petitions for an executive pardon for noncitizens who have been convicted of a crime in New York. The stated purpose of the panel is to identify and expedite pardons for immigrants whose convictions make them eligible for deportation. Under federal law, immigrants who are convicted of a variety of criminal offenses face deportation from the United States.
In an effort to prevent aliens convicted of crimes from being subject to deportation as a result of their offenses, the five-member clemency panel has been assigned the task of reviewing cases and recommending noncitizens for a pardon from the governor. The scandal-plagued Paterson, who assumed office when Eliot Spitzer resigned in 2008, is expected to issue the pardons before he leaves office at the end of the year.
The lack of any reaction from the DOJ to this effort to subvert U.S. immigration laws stands in stark contrast to its response to Arizona’s efforts to enforce federal laws. From the day S.B. 1070 was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, President Obama and key members of his administration publicly charged that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the federal government’s authority over immigration policy. Yet, when the governor of New York announced publicly that he intended to issue pardons to convicted criminals in order to thwart their removal under federal immigration laws, there was neither condemnation nor the threat of a lawsuit from the administration.
The contrast between the Obama administration’s response to policies in Arizona and New York clearly illustrate FAIR’s charge that the DOJ lawsuit against the Arizona law was motivated purely by the administration’s political objectives, not constitutional issues. In New York, the DOJ is refusing to defend the constitutional authority of Congress to set the criteria for offenses that make a noncitizen subject to deportation, and to have those policies enforced.
