• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Government files suit

Twister Frost

Well-known member
to have Arizona immigration law thrown out

PHOENIX -- The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, saying the law blatantly violates the Constitution.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states rights at a time when politicians across the country have indicated they want to follow Arizona's lead on the toughest-in-the-nation immigration law.

The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona's action, declaring that the law will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while altogether ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.

Supporters of the law say the suit was an unnecessary action by the federal government after years of neglecting problems at the border. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision" and defended the law as "reasonable and constitutional"

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

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. The law also 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.

Other states have said they want to take similar action -- a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.

"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.

The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration -- and that those statutes take precedent.

"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

The lawsuit also says that the Arizona measure will impose a huge burden on U.S. agencies in charge of enforcing immigration laws, "diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."

The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law struck down.

Brewer predicted that the law would survive the federal challenge as well as pending suits previously filed by private groups and individuals.

"As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice," Brewer said. "Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds."

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.

The lawsuit is sure to have legal and political ramifications beyond Arizona as the courts weigh in on balancing power between the states and the federal government and politicians invoke the immigration issue in this crucial election year.

Reflecting the political delicacy of the issue, three Democratic members of Congress in Arizona asked the Obama administration not to bring the suit in a year when they face tough re-election battles. On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain is locked into a tough primary fight as his right-leaning GOP challenger takes him to task for his earlier promotion of comprehensive immigration reform, which he has since abandoned in favor of a message to "Complete the danged fence."

The case focuses heavily on the legal argument called pre-emption -- an issue that has been around since the Founding Fathers declared that the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the land."

The Obama administration's reliance on the pre-emption argument in the Arizona case marks the latest chapter in its use of this legal tool.

Within months of taking office, the Obama White House directed department heads to undertake pre-emption of state law only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states.

The 2009 directive was aimed at reversing Bush administration policy which had aggressively employed pre-emption in an effort to undermine a wide range of state health, safety and environmental laws.

"The case strikes me as incredibly important because of its implications for the immigration debate," said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Julian Davis Mortenson. "The courts are going to take a close look at whether the Arizona law conflicts with congressional objectives at the federal level."

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 "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.

The Mexico government welcomed the decision to sue to block a law that it said "affects the civil and human rights of thousands of Mexicans."
------


Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix, John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., and Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
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.

How are immigration laws any different than any other federal law? Local authorities are certainly able to question and arrest individuals related to counterfeit charges.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Funny how the Feds are filing charges against Az. for wanting the Federal laws to be enforced BUT they are not filing charges on cities that refuse to enforce Federal laws with their actions like providing sanctuary to known illegals. Can we agree this is all politicially motivated to get the Hispanic vote? :roll: :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Funny how the Feds are filing charges against Az. for wanting the Federal laws to be enforced BUT they are not filing charges on cities that refuse to enforce Federal laws with their actions like providing sanctuary to known illegals. Can we agree this is all politicially motivated to get the Hispanic vote? :roll: :mad:

Been that way for years with the Dems-no surprise because they know they'll get more Dem voter- but can you tell me why GW and his predecessors all the way back to Ike did the same-- including Reagan that signed the last Amnesty law (but never enforced the part about making it illegal to hire illegals)- and GW who joined arm and arm to co-sponsor the Bush/Kennedy/McCain Amnesty :???:

Thats the question that makes me most curious (and scares me most)--who has all these Repubs in their pockets that they refuse to secure the borders or enforce the immigration laws-- and groups like the Repub US Chamber of Commerce even crawl in bed with ACLU to fight efforts to identify illegals :???: Doesn't that make you wonder :???:

Personally- I think Obama is doing it right- challenge the Arizona law on the fact that immigration law is Federal Law-- and make the Repubs sh*t or get off the pot on what they really want to do with the immigration problems and illegals- and declare how they are going to do it.... I still haven't heard word one on how they will rid the country of 20 million illegals- while sorting out which are legal- and what their answer will be for the millions of underage anchor babies that have every right to remain in the county under the SCOTUS rulings- even tho their parents don't....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
CRS Report for Congress

Enforcing Immigration Law:
The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement

Updated August 14, 2006

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq.) currently
provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal
provisions. The legislative proposals that have been introduced, however, would
appear to expand the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in the civil
regulatory aspects of immigration law (i.e., identifying and detaining deportable
aliens for purposes of removal). Adding the enforcement of civil immigration law
to the role of state and local law enforcement could, in essence, involve the agencies
in a seemingly unfamiliar mission. This potential expansion has prompted many to
examine the legal authority by which state and local law enforcement agencies may
enforce immigration law, particularly the civil enforcement measures.
This report examines the role of state and local law enforcement in enforcing
immigration law. The discussion is limited to the role of state and local law
enforcement in the investigation, arrest, and detention of all immigration violators.


The report does not discuss the prosecution, adjudication, or removal of aliens who
violate the law. The report opens with a brief discussion of the types of immigration
interior enforcement activities that the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) pursued and the current immigration activities that are now the focus of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A discussion of the legal authority
that permits state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law under certain
circumstances follows. Current administrative efforts to involve state and local law
enforcement in enforcing immigration law as well as selected issues are discussed.
The report concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of such a policy and an
analysis of policy options for Congress.

https://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2006,0912-crs.pdf
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
and make the Repubs sh*t or get off the pot on what they really want to do with the immigration problems and illegals- and declare how they are going to do it.... I still haven't heard word one on how they will rid the country of 20 million illegals- while sorting out which are legal- ....

if you hadn't heard of the perfect solution you've not been listening.. I and many other conservative republicans have voiced our support of the AZ. law , and the idea of checking on status for long time now.


it seems the republicans in Arizona have a great solution..

by normal attrition, arrests of those who break other laws, they will rid their state of law breaking illegals..

the result being less illegals, and those who are left are for the most part law abiding..

seems like a perfect solution... all for less then the cost of a bus ticket back..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve- what do you do with the underage anchor babies left here so they can receive their US citizen benefits- like a US education...Do you set up dormitory housing like they did for the Indian kids years ago? Welfare pay for guardian families to raise them ?

The biggest trouble Ike got into with his Operation Wetback involved anchor babies- and what to do with them...

I have little faith in just arresting, jailing and then deporting illegals-- as many of the border patrol will tell you- they beat you back across the border...

The only thing I see that will end much of the illegal problem is strict enforcement of the law and strong penalties against those hiring and transporting illegals...But it would have to be a nationwide effort to work....And I doubt you will see Repubs supporting jailing their corporate and fatcat buddies- which was evident after the Reagan Amnesty when the law was never enforced.....
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve- what do you do with the underage anchor babies

quote]

They belong to their parents....so right there lays your solution. It is the parents responsibility to take care of their own kids. Let's not try and make this more complicated than it is.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve- what do you do with the underage anchor babies left here so they can receive their US citizen benefits- like a US education...Do you set up dormitory housing like they did for the Indian kids years ago? Welfare pay for guardian families to raise them ?

it is the parents responsibility.. not the States..

if the parents choose to give up their parental rights then the children can be placed with foster care and adoption.

your grasping for a problem that hasn't been created..
 

Steve

Well-known member
I have little faith in just arresting, jailing and then deporting illegals-- as many of the border patrol will tell you- they beat you back across the border...

because as of now there is no penalty for repeatedly breaking the law..

:mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Steve- what do you do with the underage anchor babies left here so they can receive their US citizen benefits- like a US education...Do you set up dormitory housing like they did for the Indian kids years ago? Welfare pay for guardian families to raise them ?

it is the parents responsibility.. not the States..

if the parents choose to give up their parental rights then the children can be placed with foster care and adoption.

your grasping for a problem that hasn't been created..

It was with Ike--because he deported the anchor kids too- and the courts came back and said he couldn't....
What if parents don't give up their parental rights- but are deported- and want their kids to be able to partake of what the courts say is their citizenship rights? :???: Question never has been answered...

I think maybe the Repubs should put up an answer to that one...Any which way its done- it should be done Federally- with one "enforced" law for the nation-- not 50 differing sets of rules- and paperwork...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
You deport the illegal parents
You tell the parents they are welcome to take their kids with them
If they choose to leave them, they could leave them with a party of their choosing(family, relatives, etc.)
If they choose to leave them and not put them with a guardian then they would be put in foster care.

Is that so hard? NO
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Interpreting the 14th Amendment

According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.


What Does This Mean?

Higher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not correcting this mis-application of the 14th Amendment, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Disrespect for the rule of law: Congress, by failing to act on legislation aimed at correcting the interpretation of citizenship by birth, in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The United States is unusual in its offer to extend citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Other developed countries have changed their citizenship practice to eliminate the problems caused by the practice of birthright citizenship.[1] The anchor baby problem has grown to such large proportions that the United States can no longer afford to ignore it. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608


In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Steve- what do you do with the underage anchor babies left here so they can receive their US citizen benefits- like a US education...Do you set up dormitory housing like they did for the Indian kids years ago? Welfare pay for guardian families to raise them ?

it is the parents responsibility.. not the States..

if the parents choose to give up their parental rights then the children can be placed with foster care and adoption.

your grasping for a problem that hasn't been created..

It was with Ike--because he deported the anchor kids too- and the courts came back and said he couldn't....
What if parents don't give up their parental rights- but are deported- and want their kids to be able to partake of what the courts say is their citizenship rights? :???: Question never has been answered...

I think maybe the Repubs should put up an answer to that one...Any which way its done- it should be done Federally- with one "enforced" law for the nation-- not 50 differing sets of rules- and paperwork...


the courts have ruled on the issue..

In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 legal immigrant parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years for what it described as "minor criminal convictions"

Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.

the person committing the crime is deported. ,.. as parents they often take their children with them..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
You deport the illegal parents
You tell the parents they are welcome to take their kids with them
If they choose to leave them, they could leave them with a party of their choosing(family, relatives, etc.)
If they choose to leave them and not put them with a guardian then they would be put in foster care.

Is that so hard? NO

And you don't think that costs-- not only paying the foster parents- but the cost of raising the child.....
Can you imagine how the public/world will come down on the "family values" party if they start ripping families apart.... :???:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Larrry said:
You deport the illegal parents
You tell the parents they are welcome to take their kids with them
If they choose to leave them, they could leave them with a party of their choosing(family, relatives, etc.)
If they choose to leave them and not put them with a guardian then they would be put in foster care.

Is that so hard? NO

And you don't think that costs-- not only paying the foster parents- but the cost of raising the child.....
Can you imagine how the public/world will come down on the "family values" party if they start ripping families apart.... :???:

And in your mind is it cost effective to continue to suppot the family ???

At least paying the foster parents keeps the illigals out of the loop

but then i suppose you want to suppoert the whole Mexican country!

MIght open up a few more cases for yuoiu to hear as a J.P.

'Justice of the peace' constitutes just one of several titles given to state court judges with limited jurisdiction over only certain case types, generally not including felony criminal cases. Municipal court judges, justices of the peace and magistrates perform many of the same duties, include adjudicating traffic violations, performing marriage ceremonies, trying small-claims cases and conducting pretrial hearings. Some states allow justices of the peace to handle cases involving domestic relations, contracts, and other chosen legal areas, according to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics (BLS).



yep sure as heck could let you hear more cases

EH?
:wink: :wink: :wink:
 
Top