Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[LarryW]

The Chicago thugs respond...!

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt...cc4c03286.html

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.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

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.

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.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law in April, and it was set to go into effect July 29. The lawsuit could delay implementation of the law.

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.

The lawsuit is expected to be announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.

President Barack 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.

[busa]

Govern against the will of the people, we are in trouble.

[rdret1]

I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law. There is nothing substantial in the Arizona law that is not in federal law. Local LEO's are allowed to arrest for federal laws, including immigration. Most local agencies simply do not choose to pursue them, as it tends to be a headache contacting ICE and waiting to see if they are going to come and get them. In my experience, they tend to respond only if the subject has a lengthy record, to include crimes of violence and drugs. They seldom respond if the only infractions are misdemeanors and simply being here illegaly. Gov. Brewer is simply trying to force the feds to enforce the laws already there.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by rdret1

Entire post.

If the court agrees with RD's assessment, the unintended consequences could be interesting.

In any case, I think this lawsuit is a good idea because it keeps AZ's solution under discussion and helps to push the debate towards resolution.

YMMV.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by rdret1

I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law. There is nothing substantial in the Arizona law that is not in federal law. Local LEO's are allowed to arrest for federal laws, including immigration. Most local agencies simply do not choose to pursue them, as it tends to be a headache contacting ICE and waiting to see if they are going to come and get them. In my experience, they tend to respond only if the subject has a lengthy record, to include crimes of violence and drugs. They seldom respond if the only infractions are misdemeanors and simply being here illegaly. Gov. Brewer is simply trying to force the feds to enforce the laws already there.

ICE is toooo busy trying to do the job's of other Federal agencys like DEA, FBI. If they would just do their established job things would work a lot more...... Normally they are too busy snaking cases form others or fighting with CBP.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

ICE is toooo busy trying to do the job's of other Federal agencys like DEA, FBI. If they would just do their established job things would work a lot more...... Normally they are too busy snaking cases form others or fighting with CBP.

Sir,

Very well Sid, IMHO. And also, your knowledge and expertise on this matter was overlooked by my post, stupid me...I think you have hit the nail on the head...quietly.

Great Post B!

Holly

[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.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by rdret1

I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law.

Very well said, Sir! Am wondering the same thing! Honestly, how can the Federal Government challenge Federal Law upheld by a state??? Unless, the Federal Government thinks that no-one will ask this question??? Scary, IMHO!

Arizona is doing what it must, and as a future resident of that state, I applaud them!

Holly

[tonyz]

This may help provide some understanding of the Feds and their legal strategy/authority. I have not read the Complaint - but I do recall from years ago the concept of congress "occupying the field."

That is, there is a concept in the area of constitutional law commonly referred to as Federal preemption...

Preemption is the rule of law that states that if the federal government - through Congress - has enacted legislation on a subject matter it shall be controlling over state laws and/or preclude the state from enacting laws on the same subject if Congress has "occupied the field."

It may be argued that the Feds have occupied the field in the area of immigration law (although they have chosen to selectively enforce the federal immigration statutes), thus, the AZ statute may be found to be constitutionally invalid.

As I say, I have neither the time nor the inclination to read what the Justice Department has filed, but I did want to share the notion that there may be legal precedent for the suit.

Hope this helps.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I have not read the Complaint.

I do not agree that shooting from the hip is the way to go when it comes to the most devisive political debate of the day. YMMV.

FWIW, the complaint is reprinted here. It says in part:

1. In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by rdret1

I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law. There is nothing substantial in the Arizona law that is not in federal law. Local LEO's are allowed to arrest for federal laws, including immigration. Most local agencies simply do not choose to pursue them, as it tends to be a headache contacting ICE and waiting to see if they are going to come and get them. In my experience, they tend to respond only if the subject has a lengthy record, to include crimes of violence and drugs. They seldom respond if the only infractions are misdemeanors and simply being here illegaly. Gov. Brewer is simply trying to force the feds to enforce the laws already there.

My donations are going to the Gov Jan Brewer. I will vacation in Arizona if possible this year.

[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.