Let’s get this straight. Arizona supposedly conflicts with federal law by actually trying to enforce federal law, and that results in condemnations from the White House and a lawsuit from the Justice Department.

Sanctuary cities, meanwhile, conflict with federal law by blatantly ignoring federal law, and that results in excuses from the White House and no lawsuit from the Justice Department.

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona’s new immigration law was singled out because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

The guy who actually wrote the federal law in question wishes to disagree.

“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law –who fail to comply with the law — is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

The relevant Arizona law simply restates federal law and allows local authorities to enforce said law. Sanctuary cities, meanwhile, blatantly violate federal law. The Obama Administration reacts by suing Arizona while excusing sanctuary cities. Typical.

Enforcing the law? Bad. Ignoring the law? Good.