First, it cannot be disputed that Arizona SB 1070 is less facially violative of American Constitutional due process and equal protections principles than the counterpart federal statute upon which Arizona modeled SB1070. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that SB 1070 provides state law enforcement actors no greater discretion to stop or detain an individual and request therefrom residency documentation than existing federal law provides federal law enforcement actors. The aforesaid present a tautology to only those who read and understand the English language (Queen's Own or otherwise) and perhaps, explain the absence of such discriminatory constitutional challenges brought in the Constitutional scholar in chief's law suit against the state of Arizona and SB1070.
Nor can the professional left (to borrow another liberal's turn of phrase) make a prima facie case of discriminatory application because, says Captain Obvious, the statute was enjoined before it became effective. In the absence of facial discrimination or discriminatory application there is simply no syllogism that supports a conclusion that SB 1070 is violative of substantive or procedural due process or equal protection under law.
Insofar as the Obama Administration has not asserted SB1070 is unconstitutional on due process or equal protection grounds in a forum of proper jurisdiction, to wit: a court in the United States of America one might find it odd that the Administration cited SB 1070 as an example of the United States itself violating international human rights standards.
Nor can the Administration seriously argue that international standards of immigration enforcement are more strict than American Constitutional standards because virtually every other country on earth provides its law enforcement far greater discretion to stop, detain and require proof of identity and lawful residency than do either SB 1070 or companion federal law. So what then could possibly explain the apparent legal absurdity of the Administration's citation of SB1070 as an example of a human rights abuse under international law?
Only two answers can possibly explain the Administration's conduct. The Administration could be yet indulging in that most vapid of conduct, self flagellation. Viewed in the most favorable light the Administration's belief that continued self-indictment will, through some tortured deviation of reason and history, come to love us for our faults. History almost universally teaches that admission of guilt typically hardens the animosity of a nation's enemies because the admissions create moral equivalency between the conduct of the contestants. We all know it best as the Oliver Stone's of the world equating the American use of nuclear weapons with Nazi genocide and aggression.
The Administration could be broadcasting in ultra high definition on an 84 inch monitor, a crystal clear signal that green light continues to illuminate the American border. This signal would be as unmistakable to narco and other genre of terrorists as it would be to the Mexican or Honduran immigrant looking for work and their generational shot at the American dream.
Neither reason logically excludes the other. Neither reason need be singularly motivational. While either or both of the foregoing conclusions could be true, no other motivation can reasonably explain the Obama Administration conduct.
What a clear example of the desperate need to generate racial disharmony that is keeping the unnatural alliance of immigrants and the Labor/socialist/Democrats (who are very much like the regimes that have brought poverty to most of Latin America) of 21st Century America.