Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Gov. Brewer

ZD--
What's your take on her long term political goals? Do you see a run for the presidency in her future?

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

ZD--
What's your take on her long term political goals? Do you see a run for the presidency in her future?

I am sure she realizes that NO Arizonan will ever be elected president, as has been proven by Goldwater, Udall, Babbitt, and McCain.

Two months ago it was a long shot for to even be elected governor in her own right. SB 1070 changed that, almost overnight. That very day, 'Sheriff Joe' Arpaio was waiting in the wings to ride to the rescue, as if a horse could support him. She had to sign, or end her governorship.

I really don't know much about her, since she toiled in the anonymity of the Sec'y of State office - AZ's 'record-keeper' and not like the federal office of the same name. When Napolitano bailed, just in time, Brewer became governor - and quickly became unpopular with her party... until 1070.

A friend who worked with her in the legislature for years speaks very highly of her. I think she realizes that governor will be her highest elective office - unless VP is higher.

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by mark46th

This is already a law in California. If I was governor, I would cut off funds from every county, city or law enforcement agency which does not comply with the law...

Here is California's law, copied straight from the California Penal Code...

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

What good has this law done? I do not live in CA, but; it appears the law is not enforced. I would cut CA's power off if I were AZ. This is dead wrong to make AZ the bad guys. The bad guys are punks who do not enforce laws. Add MALDEF to your list of anti American organizations.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I am sure she realizes that NO Arizonan will ever be elected president, as has been proven by Goldwater, Udall, Babbitt, and McCain.

Two months ago it was a long shot for to even be elected governor in her own right. SB 1070 changed that, almost overnight. That very day, 'Sheriff Joe' Arpaio was waiting in the wings to ride to the rescue, as if a horse could support him. She had to sign, or end her governorship.

I really don't know much about her, since she toiled in the anonymity of the Sec'y of State office - AZ's 'record-keeper' and not like the federal office of the same name. When Napolitano bailed, just in time, Brewer became governor - and quickly became unpopular with her party... until 1070.

A friend who worked with her in the legislature for years speaks very highly of her. I think she realizes that governor will be her highest elective office - unless VP is higher.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/09/...iref=allsearch

It appears he is having his own troubles.

[Richard]

Stephen Colbert has teamed up with the United Farm Workers of America to have unemployed Americans sign on as farm workers in an attempt to demonstrate that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don't want.

http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-ne...egal-immigrant

http://www.takeourjobs.org/

And so it goes...

Richard

[mark46th]

Alright4U- LAPD does not enforce this, they have Special Order 40, which was put in place to foster "Cooperation" with LAPD. There are a couple of cities that do enforce the law. Costa Mesa in Orange county actively enforces this law...

[Sigaba]

FWIW/FYI, a federal judge has temporarily blocked certain provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law. That order is available here.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW/FYI, a federal judge has temporarily blocked certain provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law. That order is available here.

The impending October surprise, a tidal wave of 20 million new voters through Executive Order.

[Saoirse]

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...-judge-illegal

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,

"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."
In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Saoirse

Entire post.

FWIW, the U.S. Code, title 28, part IV, chapter 81, § 1251 offers a clarification here:

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, the U.S. Code, title 28, part IV, chapter 81, § 1251 offers a clarification here:

Ike knew the problem in 54. Operation Wetback. No PC crap then.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Operation_Wetback

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by alright4u

Ike knew the problem in 54. Operation Wetback. No PC crap then.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Operation_Wetback

What was Eisenhower's campaign slogan in 1952 ? ...I like Ike...timeless

[Richard]

Here's a pretty good timeline for anyone interested.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/index.html

The border issue has been a complex matter for a long time - and as far as Operation Wetback goes, many citizens around this part of the country still remember it and the memory of its many 'questionable practices' brings back a lot of ill will whenever it is brought up in a border-migrant worker debate.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...s/OO/pqo1.html

And so it goes...

Richard

[tonyz]

Interesting sites Richard - thank you - many current immigration enforcement practices (or lack thereof) seem to be creating ill will today, also.

[ZonieDiver]

The answer is somewhere between 'Operation Wetback' and total 'amnesty.'. Whether or not we can come to consensus remains to be seen.

First we need to stem the flow. We can deal with a trckle, but not a flood.