PDA

View Full Version : Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law



Sweetchuck
07-06-2010, 07:00 PM
So the DOJ is fine with attacking what is already a federal law, but in their infinite wisdom, they're A-OK with voter intimidation.

Hope and change...

This is what happens when the check-and-balance system is disrupted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/justice-department-file-suit-arizona-early-tuesday/

Accusing Arizona of trying to "second guess" the federal government, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy -- claiming the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and "must be struck down."

Gov. Jan Brewer slammed the U.S. government saying the suit is a "massive waste of taxpayer funds."

"It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels," she said in a prepared statement. "Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice."

She went on to say, "the irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials."

In the suit, which names the state of Arizona as well as Brewer as defendants, the Justice Department claims the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law "disrupts" that balance. It urges the U.S. District Court in Arizona to "preliminarily and permanently" prohibit the state from enforcing the law, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the month.

"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. "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."

The suit, which drew tough criticism from state lawmakers Tuesday, claimed the state law focuses only on getting rid of illegal immigrants and "ignores" other immigration objectives.

"The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy," the suit says. "A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance."

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Arizona lawmakers slammed the administration over the suit Tuesday.

"This is the wrong direction to go," Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in a statement, calling on the administration to devote its resources to border security.

Twenty House Republicans wrote a letter to Holder in protest of the decision. Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl released a joint statement calling the suit "premature."

"The Obama administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility," the senators said.

The court action comes just days after President Obama delivered a speech calling on Congress to tackle a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system. In the speech, he criticized Arizona's law and warned that national legislation is needed to prevent other states from following suit.

The president did not mention the lawsuit, but one had been widely expected for weeks. After the administration initially said it would take the law under review, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed last month in an interview with a foreign television network that the administration intended to challenge the Arizona policy.

The Arizona law, passed in April, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their residency status.

Several civil rights and law enforcement officials lauded the administration's actions Tuesday.

Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, called it a "critical step" to undo Arizona's "unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling."

"The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach," he said. The ACLU had already filed a legal challenge, which Guttentag said it would continue to pursue.

The Arizona law touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona's.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

Republicans bristled at the speech, though, and continued to urge the administration to better secure the border before tackling a comprehensive bill -- which would likely include a pathway to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

"We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a "disappointment."

Gaffer
07-06-2010, 07:44 PM
The administrations actions are criminal not just disappointing. Wonder how long before federal troops and the fbi are ordered into Arizona.

DragonStryk72
07-06-2010, 08:01 PM
They should push a countersuit since apparently, the federal government has proven completely inept at performing it's given function as laid out in their suit.

SassyLady
07-06-2010, 08:14 PM
Don't forget ... this was the same administration that wanted to try the 9/11 hijackers in NYC .... they have sinced backed away from that.

Sometimes I think this admin really uses the Overton window to the max.

DragonStryk72
07-06-2010, 08:21 PM
Actually, it's more than that come to think of it: The whole reason for this law the federal lack of response to the illegal immigration problem. From there, AZ enacted a law that worked as a support mechanism to the existing federal laws, and now the US government is withholding vital support against the criminal that have invaded and claimed territory in AZ, and thrown suit against AZ while not once doing anything at all about 'sanctuary' laws in states that directly contravenes federal authority.

SassyLady
07-06-2010, 08:33 PM
Actually, it's more than that come to think of it: The whole reason for this law the federal lack of response to the illegal immigration problem. From there, AZ enacted a law that worked as a support mechanism to the existing federal laws, and now the US government is withholding vital support against the criminal that have invaded and claimed territory in AZ, and thrown suit against AZ while not once doing anything at all about 'sanctuary' laws in states that directly contravenes federal authority.

I know ... they support laws/policies that defy the current federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities) and fight against laws that support the current immigration. What kind of logic is this? :slap:

Sweetchuck
07-06-2010, 08:55 PM
Don't forget ... this was the same administration that wanted to try the 9/11 hijackers in NYC .... they have sinced backed away from that.

Sometimes I think this admin really uses the Overton window to the max.

That's a great point. BO and the regime are looking to use their strengths in light of a lack of a check and balance system, that is the legal system to promote their agenda. You see it with the voter intimidation issue, with the AZ immigration law issue and with SCOTUS (see, I got it right this time).

These are the tools that the socialists are using to best their advantage. Attacking the media via control of the internet and conservative talk shows is the other battle front.

It's going to be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. I can see the History Channel running a documentary on this segment of our political history that spells out BO's planned warfare against the American political system 20 years from now. Let's hope it's not as we're returning from our shits at the gulags.

SassyLady
07-06-2010, 09:10 PM
That's a great point. BO and the regime are looking to use their strengths in light of a lack of a check and balance system, that is the legal system to promote their agenda. You see it with the voter intimidation issue, with the AZ immigration law issue and with SCOTUS (see, I got it right this time).

These are the tools that the socialists are using to best their advantage. Attacking the media via control of the internet and conservative talk shows is the other battle front.

It's going to be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. I can see the History Channel running a documentary on this segment of our political history that spells out BO's planned warfare against the American political system 20 years from now. Let's hope it's not as we're returning from our shits at the gulags.

Well, I don't believe Americans will sit still and be herded into internment camps ... however, I do wonder what issue the admin would use as an excuse to try and round up people and put them in those camps.

Sweetchuck
07-06-2010, 09:34 PM
Well, I don't believe Americans will sit still and be herded into internment camps ... however, I do wonder what issue the admin would use as an excuse to try and round up people and put them in those camps.

Well, I'm being dramatic here but I think you get my point.

I disagree with you to some extent though, I don't think the average voter is sophisticated enough to realize the impact of BO's agenda and legislation. Hence his focus on bringing uneducated illegals into the voting fold.

I know it sounds radical, and I'm becoming more of a radical thinker in my... ahem, advancing years but this is what I see happening. The voting base is power to the liberal, socialist agenda. Power to the people thing and if the rest of us who make up the minority as it seems in the voting base don't wake the fuck up and nip this thing in the bud, it's going to move toward a very, very dangerous point.

I'm a registered GOP'er. I don't have faith in the GOP, I have faith in conservatives though, and I'm not sure that a third party - ie: tea party is in a position to make any kind of impact and this is the thing that I fear is going to give liberal socialists more power - the divide of the conservative base.

My biggest fear is that by the time the conservative base unites and becomes any sort of an effective force, liberals will have done a lot of damage. A lot of damage.

It's all up to the people and I have little faith in the collective.

SassyLady
07-06-2010, 10:34 PM
Well, I'm being dramatic here but I think you get my point.

I disagree with you to some extent though, I don't think the average voter is sophisticated enough to realize the impact of BO's agenda and legislation. Hence his focus on bringing uneducated illegals into the voting fold.

I know it sounds radical, and I'm becoming more of a radical thinker in my... ahem, advancing years but this is what I see happening. The voting base is power to the liberal, socialist agenda. Power to the people thing and if the rest of us who make up the minority as it seems in the voting base don't wake the fuck up and nip this thing in the bud, it's going to move toward a very, very dangerous point.

I'm a registered GOP'er. I don't have faith in the GOP, I have faith in conservatives though, and I'm not sure that a third party - ie: tea party is in a position to make any kind of impact and this is the thing that I fear is going to give liberal socialists more power - the divide of the conservative base.

My biggest fear is that by the time the conservative base unites and becomes any sort of an effective force, liberals will have done a lot of damage. A lot of damage.

It's all up to the people and I have little faith in the collective.

It is the loss of faith of the American will to survive that will defeat us Sweetchuck. But, we cannot sit on our arses and just pray that things will get better. We need to be activists. Traditionally, conservatives haven't been ongoing activists ... they usually try to let things work themselves out ... however, it's becoming increasingly apparent that conservatives need to become more involved and outspoken.

We used to sit back and think common sense would eventually prevail.....but corruption in government has pretty much erradicated common sense.

DragonStryk72
07-07-2010, 02:56 AM
I'm a registered GOP'er. I don't have faith in the GOP, I have faith in conservatives though, and I'm not sure that a third party - ie: tea party is in a position to make any kind of impact and this is the thing that I fear is going to give liberal socialists more power - the divide of the conservative base.


I'm not trying to come down harsh on you, chuck, but that thinking is exactly why we are still stuck in this rut. The GOP isn't going to dig its head out of its ass until they start losing votes, period. When they lose their own base, that's when it will catch up to them, and only then.

Voting for third parties, such as the libertarian party, or tea party if it forms up into an actual party, is the only way to change the equation, and thus the only way to change the answer you fear is coming.

red states rule
07-07-2010, 07:26 AM
ABC News is whining - "Hey Mr President where is the "Discrimination" charge?

Seems that is what the liberal media is really wanting to ram down the throats of Americas - despit ethe fact a huge majority support the law and want more states to pass a similiar law

Perhaps the Fed did not mention discrimination, and racial profiling because there is nothing like that in the law

But that would way to obvious for your average liberal to grasp





As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/justice-department-sues-arizona-for-immigration-law.html

HogTrash
07-07-2010, 07:46 AM
Why is Obama "calling on Congress to tackle a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system" when there is nothing wrong with it?

All the federal government has to do is protect our borders and enforce the immigration laws that are already in place, and our problems will be solved.

If the DOJ feels it must file suit against someone, let them do it against cities who are actually breaking the law by declaring themselves Sanctuary Cities.

SassyLady
07-07-2010, 12:00 PM
"Overhaul" means continued delays in the development process thus allowing more illegals to enter. "Enforcement" means government has to take immediate action thus curtailing the current influx. Think about it .... if you were the current administration .... what would be in your best interests .... not the best interests of the country .... but your own? You would file a lawsuit and encourage overhaul so that years will pass before anything real has to be done.

It would be interesting if Obama put as much pressure and energy into enforcing the current immigration laws as he did getting health care passed.

red states rule
07-07-2010, 04:50 PM
"Overhaul" means continued delays in the development process thus allowing more illegals to enter. "Enforcement" means government has to take immediate action thus curtailing the current influx. Think about it .... if you were the current administration .... what would be in your best interests .... not the best interests of the country .... but your own? You would file a lawsuit and encourage overhaul so that years will pass before anything real has to be done.

It would be interesting if Obama put as much pressure and energy into enforcing the current immigration laws as he did getting health care passed.

He can't enforce the current laws and at the same time get them signed up to vote

You have to remember everything Obama is doing right now is to get them signed up to vote Democrat in time for the November election

DOJ will not touch any voter fraud cases

Gaffer
07-07-2010, 04:59 PM
He can't enforce the current laws and at the same time get them signed up to vote

You have to remember everything Obama is doing right now is to get them signed up to vote Democrat in time for the November election

DOJ will not touch any voter fraud cases

I said months ago, the dems don't fear Nov because they have some trickery up their sleeve. I think it's starting to become apparent what that is.

red states rule
07-07-2010, 05:03 PM
I said months ago, the dems don't fear Nov because they have some trickery up their sleeve. I think it's starting to become apparent what that is.

But it will not work. Dems are losing Independents is huge numbers. The Latinos here LEGALLY also support the AZ law and are opposed to the Dems massive voter drive to make illegals legal

Like with Obamacare - Dems can try to ram it trhu. It WILL come back to bite them on the ass

Gaffer
07-07-2010, 05:11 PM
But it will not work. Dems are losing Independents is huge numbers. The Latinos here LEGALLY also support the AZ law and are opposed to the Dems massive voter drive to make illegals legal

Like with Obamacare - Dems can try to ram it trhu. It WILL come back to bite them on the ass

I think they are counting on massive uninvestigated fraud. Illegals, absentee ballots and dead people voting. ACORN is going to be very busy this year.

DragonStryk72
07-07-2010, 05:14 PM
"Overhaul" means continued delays in the development process thus allowing more illegals to enter. "Enforcement" means government has to take immediate action thus curtailing the current influx. Think about it .... if you were the current administration .... what would be in your best interests .... not the best interests of the country .... but your own? You would file a lawsuit and encourage overhaul so that years will pass before anything real has to be done.

It would be interesting if Obama put as much pressure and energy into enforcing the current immigration laws as he did getting health care passed.

Plus, with the reduced if not completely eradicated illegals problem done with, healthcare would become cheaper, since we would no longer need to put the money into the government programs that paid for their hospital stays.

Sweetchuck
07-07-2010, 09:01 PM
I'm not trying to come down harsh on you, chuck, but that thinking is exactly why we are still stuck in this rut. The GOP isn't going to dig its head out of its ass until they start losing votes, period. When they lose their own base, that's when it will catch up to them, and only then.

Voting for third parties, such as the libertarian party, or tea party if it forms up into an actual party, is the only way to change the equation, and thus the only way to change the answer you fear is coming.

Well, let me elaborate.

Say the tea party starts to gain some prominence. I see them becoming just another republicrat. Same shit, different label.

I don't see any real change happening until there is real legislative reform. Term limits, pay and expense reimbursement limits and transparency, campaign contribution and spending limits.

The system corrupts the individual and it's the system that needs changed. Re-hashing the same old players and calling them something else isn't reform and it will lead to the same shit we're stepping in now.

DragonStryk72
07-07-2010, 11:06 PM
Well, let me elaborate.

Say the tea party starts to gain some prominence. I see them becoming just another republicrat. Same shit, different label.

I don't see any real change happening until there is real legislative reform. Term limits, pay and expense reimbursement limits and transparency, campaign contribution and spending limits.

The system corrupts the individual and it's the system that needs changed. Re-hashing the same old players and calling them something else isn't reform and it will lead to the same shit we're stepping in now.

Right, but if not the tea party, then at least look at libertarians, who are all voicing much the same sentiment. Without changing the players, however, none of those things you've mention (all of which I agree with) will not happen.

Kathianne
07-08-2010, 04:58 AM
I don't see the tea party morphing into a stand alone political party, more so it's an interest group, one that's gaining influence.

The Libertarian Party is going nowhere, until they put up normal folks both locally and nationally. They have the right platforms, but the wrong candidates.

Kathianne
07-08-2010, 05:32 AM
Many of those in the tea party claim to be independents, which is why I see the party as more of an influencer rather than a political party per se:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/independents-abandoning-obama-gallup-poll.html


Crucial independent voters abandoning Obama, now under 40%, lowest ever
July 7, 2010 | 3:52 am
Two new polls this morning augur ill for President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats who control Congress.

The worst -- from Gallup -- finds that for the first time since Obama took the oath, his support among independents, a key voter segment in his decisive 2008 coalition election win, has fallen below 40%.

The new tracking finds that Obama's support among all voter segments has declined in the past year, but nowhere more than among independents.

Only 38% now support him, an 18-point drop from 52 weeks ago, when polls first began showing the nation's rapidly-growing population of independent voters peeling off, as Obama relentlessly pushed his healthcare plan and ignored polls saying jobs and the economy were uppermost on voters' minds.

In that same time span, support for the Democrat has fallen 9 points among Democrats (from 90% to 81%) and 8 points among Republicans (from 20% to 12%).

Collectively, only 46% of Americans approve of the president's job performance, just 1 point above his worst approval of 45%. Obama's approval has not been above 50% since February....

darin
07-08-2010, 05:55 AM
Things like this will break the union; C'mon texas..maybe other states...stand up to the thugs in the whitehouse.

red states rule
07-08-2010, 06:44 AM
Of course the liberal media is also doing all they can to support Obama and the Feds in their war on AZ

Even if it means lying about the bill and intentions of those who passed it

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZukUnzZu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZukUnzZu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>