Today, the United States federal government decided to take on little ol' Arizona in court over SB 1070.  The Justice Department claims:

...S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

No, it doesn't.  SB 1070 compliments federal law, and if anything, restricts state officials further than federal officials from investigating possible illegal immigration violations. 

Let's face facts here.  The federal government's lawsuit has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the Constitution or separation of powers.  Instead of relying on years of immigration law, the Democrats and liberals are looking to harvest a new set of voters.  President Obama even went so far as to say that "being American is not a matter of blood or birth".  Really?  That has got to be news to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  Actually, that's news to a whole bunch of American Government teachers out there as well.  In reality, US citizenship IS based on two things: blood and birth.

Jus soli.  In English?  Right of birthplace.  One path to citizenship is where you were born.  Hence, the upcoming battle over "anchor babies".  If you are born here, you are a citizen (and can stay once you turn 18).  In fact, here's what 8 USC 1401 (a):

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

There it is in black and white.  If you are born here, you are a citizen.

Jus sanguinis.  Right of blood.  This means that if one of your parents is a US citizen, then you have US citizen rights.  There are a few curves in there like residency prior to birth, but overall, if mommy or daddy was a US citizen, then you are a US citizen - by blood.  Again, 8 USC 1401 (c - h) explains it thoroughly:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

Then, to make matters worse, a federal judge has allowed Mexico to participate in another lawsuit brought against Arizona.  Where's the Justice Dept. making a stink about 11th Amendment protections against states being sued by foreign governments?  Probably too busy ignoring civil rights laws regarding the New Black Panthers. 

Another argument by the Justice Dept against Arizona was this:

“Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns,” Attorney General Holder said.  “But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.   Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility.  Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

Diverting resources?  Money is considered part of resources, and if that is true, then lets talk about "resources" being diverted from necessary places due to illegal immigration.  How about $113 billion each year?  Meanwhile, amnesty would cost the US taxpayer $2 trillion in future benefits to instantaneous citizens.   This administration is more about doing what they want to score political and ideological points, and attempting to find new voters they haven't angered than to do what is right, to do what is fiscally sound, or do what the people of Arizona and many others want the federal government to do - take care of the illegal immigration problem and enforce the laws.