Spokane7
50°
July 7, 2010 in City
Government sues Arizona over law on immigration
Policy usurps federal authority, filing says
PHOENIX – The Obama administration sued Arizona on Tuesday to throw out the state’s toughest-in-the-nation immigration law and keep other states from copying it.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government’s “pre-eminent authority” under the Constitution to regulate immigration.
The move sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states’ rights at a time when politicians in some other states have indicated they want to follow Arizona’s lead.
The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law said the lawsuit was unnecessary and blamed the federal government for neglecting problems at the border for years. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the complaint “a terribly bad decision” and defended the law as “reasonable and constitutional.”
Arizona passed the measure after years of frustration with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigration, and it’s home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to 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 focuses on the Constitution’s assertion that federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says that comprehensive federal laws already on the books 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 next step is for the case to be assigned a judge, who will decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the law from taking effect.
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 a 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 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 and 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 Mexican government welcomed the move, saying the law “affects the civil and human rights of thousands of Mexicans.”
2 home invasion robberies in Spokane 
IHike4Fun on July 07 at 5:20 a.m.
The government has no case. In the first case we are not talking about immigration we are talking about an invasion. In the second place this administration has done nothing to help Texas, Arizona and California with the huge problem of illegal aliens crossing the border and the violence it is bringing. And in the third case what ‘civil rights’ is Mexico talking about? People here illegally have civil rights? The law just states if someone is stopped for a moving violation they have to produce some identification (like a driver’s license). If they can’t the officer must check farther to find out who the person is.
This is just a political move on the current sinking administration to save face. The last I heard there are at least 20 other states who want to pass similar laws. Why would they want to do this if the federal government was doing an adequate job of protecting our boarders?
This is like Janet Napolitano claiming ‘The system works!’ after a private citizen disarmmed a airline passenger with a bomb because they slipped past Janet’s system.
Orange on July 07 at 6:31 a.m.
no case against AZ here. And I would kind of like to see the outcome of Arizona’s plan. SO LET THEM BE!
tinybobidaho on July 07 at 8:13 a.m.
Obama is holding hostage securing our border until he can get immigration reform (amnesty) for all the illegals here. It’s amazing the steps the Obama administration will go through to protect these “undocumented Democrats” so they can stay here to help the left stay in power. Obama could care less that Americans are getting killed daily by illegal aliens in this country, and now there’s a new problem. The drug cartels have threatened to kill our police down there if they try to enforce this new law. Illegal immigration is not only an invasion, it’s now an act of war against Americans and Obama needs to be impeached for refusing to protect this country and our citizens.
SpokaneLiberal on July 07 at 8:44 a.m.
I doubt the federal government will succeed after the changes made to the law, however I do think the law will fall when a US citizen who is Spanish speaking only doesn’t have the proper documents (or refuses to provide them) and is arrested and detained in violation of their due process rights.
As to the false accusations about Obama “holding hostage securing our border” etc. This just doesn’t line up with reality. Our border is not secure, but arrests, expenditures, deportations, and interdictions are all up substantially in Obama’s first year over ANY year during Bush. Obama is doing more to stop border crossings and deport immigrants here illegally than any president in 30 years.
If you want to actually do something about this problem then you do 3 things. 1. Come up with real solutions. I haven’t heard one here that isn’t already in effect. 2. Go after employers of people who don’t have proper work authorization. This includes regular citizens who hire yardworkers or temporary labor. I don’t mean little fines, I mean 100K per infraction plus jail time if the person didn’t do their due diligence. 3. Legalize, tax, and regulate drugs. If you really want to gut violent gangs and cartels you take away their cash stream. Legality has no effect on consumption. You can reallocate 50% of the money spent on imprisoning drug offenders into drug treatment and 35% into regulatory structures for legal drugs, and still have 15% savings, not to mention new taxes. We killed “mob” syndicates by legalizing their cash stream (booze) and are none the worse - nay much the better for it.
Scoutster on July 07 at 9:00 a.m.
SpokaneLIberal…you are right on. The real culprits are the employers, but since they pay campaign contributions to both parties, it’s the workers that get targeted.
BTW, for those who believe American jobs are being lost to undocumented workers, please go take one of these jobs: pick lettuce for 8 hours in 100 degree heat and tell us how your pension and health insurance is working out.
www.takeourjobs.org
Scoutster on July 07 at 9:01 a.m.
A person in uniform has no business asking me to present papers.
Mrneone on July 07 at 9:03 a.m.
I live in Florida and have for over 25 years. I don’t have a bigoted bone in my body. Arizona is well within their rights to enforce the laws that the federal government either refuses to or doesn’t have the means to.
What is the real concern in my mind is how few terrorists and their plots have been found when the federal government is actually looking for them. What have they missed coming across our southern borders while the feds are looking the other way?
This is just one man’s opinion.
SugarShane on July 07 at 9:04 a.m.
Wow, Spokane Liberal is the only one that made a decent post. Poor little Pubs have to take any little scraps they can find and try and turn in on Obama. Guess what? McSame lost along with his Not Too Strong in the Wits department sidekick. Either your part of the solution, or your part of the problem. Heres a little tidbit you Rethugs liked to spout off when bush was King, “If you don’t like it, get the eff out of here”, no one will miss you, or your posts.
SpokaneLiberal on July 07 at 11:58 a.m.
Mrneone
What makes you believe we are looking away? Is it the hundreds of miles of fence? Is it the drones? Is it the ground vibration detection devices installed in the last year? Is it the 40% increase in the number of Boarder Patrol Agents over the last 6 years? The increase in deportations under Obama? MOST immigrants that are here illegally entered the country legally. It isn’t a case of the feds failing to do their job in “securing the boarder” it is a failure of anyone to do anything about the DEMAND for labor that doesn’t comply with federal regulations. The only way to “convince” the people who came legally and then stayed to work illegally is to stop the illegal employment.
horse_feathers on July 07 at 12:18 p.m.
Just keep on spewing that SpokaneLiberal crap , only the weak minded believe it.
SpokaneLiberal on July 07 at 12:40 p.m.
What specifically is crap? I like facts and can be persuaded by them. Which statements specifically are “crap” and why?
crikey on July 07 at 1:23 p.m.
Crossing a border over privately owned land in the middle of the night without any documentation does not qualify as ‘entering legally.’ The Feds have been ignoring the problem for years, and now nobama (who has done NOTHING to stop the flood of illegals) wants to cause a ruckus over Az.’s enforcement of a FEDERAL LAW to enable him to grant amnesty to a bunch of users and takers, who exploit our social systems. The migrant workers used to need a green card to be in our country to work the fields, but that’s long gone by those who have turned a blind eye to this hostile takeover. It isn’t just Mexicans crossing the border, it’s radical muslims, too, with no good intent for America.
We’re ALL required to ‘show papers’ when law enforcement asks us, that’s why states provide ID cards that you have to show a birth certificate for. Get a grip, you socialist thugs, because if you don’t care that the USA if flushed by the current regime, there are plenty of us out here who do, and are willing to uphold our Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
SpokaneLiberal on July 07 at 2:58 p.m.
You are right crikey, that does not count as entering the country legally, however, a majority of people living in this country ENTERED legally and overstayed their visa or visitor’s passport. Some are here legally but working illegally as they are not authorized for employment.
Again you can claim Obama has done nothing but it doesn’t make it reality, as stated before arrests, expenditures, deportations, and interdictions are all up substantially in Obama’s first year over ANY year during Bush. During Obama’s time in office we completed hundreds of miles of fence, deployed additional aerial drones, increased the number of border patrol officers, deployed portions of the national guard, installed ground sensors, added video monitoring capability, etc. The number of people entering illegally as you described (at night across private land) is at a 25 year low but the number of people living in the US illegally is still high. Why? Illegal employers. Cheats who create the demand. If you want to get serious about it the one thing Obama hasn’t done is laid the hammer to employers who fail to do their due diligence.
We are not required to “show papers” when law enforcement asks us, they may ask, but we don’t have to show them anything see Terry v. Ohio, Florida v. Rodriguez, and INS v. Delgado.
If you note my original post I said that I didn’t think the feds would prevail, only an individual who had their due process rights violated for refusing or not having proof of citizenship. However something in your post actually gets to the heart of their case and makes it possible they might. State enforcing FEDERAL LAW. The argument the Justice Department is making is that states can’t do that (and that is backed by precedent). Failure of the feds to enforce the law does not empower the states to enforce those powers granted only to the federal govt.
You can say what you want about losing the country - or it being flushed, but the truth is that we only lose our country when we are willing to ignore the constitution at the convenience of what we want to happen - or even what is necessary. Fortunately or unfortunately the Constitution is only flexible to certain emergent situations through amendment.
Scoutster on July 08 at 10:55 a.m.
Crikey..
Where do I sign up for the “Socialist Thugs” club? I thought we were all bleeding hearts, now I hear we are thugs.
Man, I have trouble keeping up with how we who disagree are supposed to be humiliated and belittled by the right.
Help me, Dr. Phil.
Scoutster on July 08 at 10:58 a.m.
By the way, I”m still not sure who is supposed to pick the lettuce and process the chickens if we tossed all the illegals out.
eagleproducer on July 09 at 11:33 p.m.
Scoutster: Name me a type of lettuce that thrives on 100 degree heat. Good luck!
All I have to say is that no one posting here has lived in Arizona to see the impact illegal immigration has on that state and how the federal efforts to enforce the existing laws end up hassling U.S. citizens more than deter the flow of illegals.
There are checkpoints in Arizona well within the U.S., manned by CBP and ICE agents that stop EVERY car and ask for proof of citizenship, where you are going, where you’ve been, etc. They end up being dragnets where U.S. citizens are arrested for simply going about their business.
SugarShane on July 10 at 10:32 a.m.
Sorry Spoketucky, you are misinformed. I lived in AZ for almost 10 years.
misjustice on July 10 at 1:57 p.m.
Finally, the Obama administration is going after employers which illegally hire undocumented workers…this article was in the online version of the NY Times today…
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: July 9, 2010
BREWSTER, Wash. — The Obama administration has
replaced immigration raids at factories and farms with a quieter enforcement strategy: sending federal agents to scour companies’ records for illegal immigrant workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10enforce.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
eagleproducer on July 11 at 1:53 p.m.
sugarshane: When was the last time you were in Arizona? I am not misinformed and lived there recently to witness firsthand what I claimed.
Usually when I state someone is “misinformed” I provide proof to bolster my assertion.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-03-13/news/border-patrol-checkpoints-near-yuma-nab-hordes-of-pot-users-headed-back-from-the-beach/
An excerpt from the article: “The Border Patrol is allowed to set up roadblocks as far as 100 miles from any national border, and it operates 33 permanent and numerous other “tactical” or movable checkpoints on the Mexican and Canadian frontiers.
But the vast majority of people getting busted at checkpoints in Arizona near Yuma aren’t smugglers or illegal immigrants. They aren’t even big-shot partiers like Lil Wayne. They’re just average people who happen to be carrying a smidgen of marijuana in their vehicles.
They might never be caught if it weren’t for an exception granted the Border Patrol to set up roadblocks with trained dogs. All the Border Patrol checkpoints, not just the ones near Yuma, take advantage of special powers that experts say contradict normal constitutional search-and-seizure rules.
So many marijuana users have been caught that, last year, Yuma officials had to streamline the legal process. In a program unique to the Yuma Sector, Border Patrol agents were given the authority to write citations in low-quantity marijuana cases as though they were deputies working for the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office.
The program even was anointed with a catchy federal handle: Operation Citation.
The deputizing of the federal agents means it’s easier than ever to get busted. And the program reflects how busting minor pot users is what the agents working at the checkpoints — whose primary mission is supposed to be stopping illegal human trafficking — spend much of their time doing.”