The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Johnny Bravo on July 06, 2010, 12:07:20 PM
-
By BOB CHRISTIE, Associated Press Writer Bob Christie, Associated Press Writer – 13 mins ago
PHOENIX – The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.
The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.
The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops usurps federal authority.
The government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, although the punishment and enforcement tactics of the Arizona are much more severe.
Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.
Prior to seeing the lawsuit or receiving any official notification, Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the reported decision to sue "a terribly bad decision."
"Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.
Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.
"This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand," Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick said in a statement Tuesday. "A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system."
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.
Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.
"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."
The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.
Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure.
"It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unprecedented and unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
___
Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan. contributed to this report.
-
The hatred in this state for Hussein is growing by the hour. Bill T.
-
"This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand," Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick said in a statement Tuesday. "A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system."
Ann, I thank you for your statement that "this lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us ..." However, the only thing "broken" in our immigration system is the Federal Governments taking responsibility to do their own job. If the Feds were doing their job Arizona, and others, would not pass laws saying "we are going to enforce existing Federal law."
Drop the lawsuit, enforce the laws already in place, then evaluate what needs changing, and quit assaulting states for doing their job where you failed to act!
-
Rember Reagan's "last ever" ammnesty in 1986? Bill Clinton's "jumping the fence" add in 1996? How about W.'s "virtual border fences and amnesty" in '04? This followed by more of the same? Here's a clue to both parties....WE DON'T TRUST YOU! CLOSE THE BORDER! I DON'T CARE HOW! Yes we can, deport illegalls. Yes we can put their employers in jail. Yes we can tell the Chamber of Commerce and La Raza to pound sand. Si, se pude! (sorry, I must have dialed 2 for spanish). ;D Yes we can. Do it or KMA in November. >:(
FQ13
-
Rember Reagan's "last ever" ammnesty in 1986? Bill Clinton's "jumping the fence" add in 1996? How about W.'s "virtual border fences and amnesty" in '04? This followed by more of the same? Here's a clue to both parties....WE DON'T TRUST YOU! CLOSE THE BORDER! I DON'T CARE HOW! Yes we can, deport illegalls. Yes we can put their employers in jail. Yes we can tell the Chamber of Commerce and La Raza to pound sand. Si, se pude! (sorry, I must have dialed 2 for spanish). ;D Yes we can. Do it or KMA in November. >:(
FQ13
FQ, you're scaring me. We actually AGREE.
-
Holder can NOT press charges against Black Panthers standing outside the polls with nightsticks,.....but prosecuting a state in crises, inundated by illegals?
NO PROBLEMO.
But after all, were all racists, AND COWARDS according to AG Holder. Remember?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/holder-calls-nation-cowards-race-matters/
WASHINGTON -- Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, said Wednesday the United States was "a nation of cowards" on matters of race, with most Americans avoiding candid discussions of racial issues.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.
What a "dou***bag"
>:(
I hope it gets shot down in court, and AZ bills the Fed for it's legal fees.
-
I wonder if there are other Federal Laws that the states have been asked or required to enforce, or that they do enforce without complaint or comment from the Feds?
Bad case precedent for the Feds here?
And a lot of encouragement for states to start telling the Feds to take a hike when asked for help.
-
What a bunch of f'in chowderheads! Why doesn't the federal govt. sue itself then?
I fear for a future where we are misled by a bunch of f-tards.
Crikey!
-
I wonder if there are other Federal Laws that the states have been asked or required to enforce, or that they do enforce without complaint or comment from the Feds?
Bad case precedent for the Feds here?
And a lot of encouragement for states to start telling the Feds to take a hike when asked for help.
Actually, thats a fine idea. Many states (Az. included I think, help me out Bill) have legalized medical pot. What if they were to say, "ok, do to not wanting to infringe on state law that might possibly inconvienence a medical marijuana user, no state or local law enforcment official will arrest anyone for possesion of any amount of pot, nor for its sale or distribution. Its now a federal matter. Dime bags? Send the DEA to make the busts. Smuggling rings? Hey, that's federal, if we were to enforce that law we'd be involved in border control Can't do it. Sorry". ;D Hang it your ass Holder. Brewer could actually get away with making that a credible threat. No Az cop busts an illegal, no AZ cop busts anyone for pot. Send the Feds. Good luck.
FQ13
-
I think states provide info to the Feds to verify income and maybe locations of suspected tax evaders.
I think the states saying "Not my job" will hit them where it hurts.
I wonder if the states are involved in reporting or collecting Fed Gasoline tax.
States will face loss of Fed money if they aren't cooperative, but it is time everyone was weaned from the Federal Teat.