US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

Tani Coyote

Son of Huehuecoyotl
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
15,191
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10530861.stm

The US federal government has filed a legal challenge to a law passed by Arizona to target illegal immigrants.

The law requires police to query the immigration status of people stopped for a legitimate reason who arouse suspicion of being in the US illegally.

The justice department will argue the law is unconstitutional as it usurps federal authority over immigration.

Due to take effect this month, the border state's new law is opposed by Mexico and civil liberties groups.

President Barack Obama has described the Arizona law as "misguided" and the administration's legal challenge was expected.

The Arizona legislature says it was forced to act because the federal government failed to do so.

The state is the biggest entry point into the US for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the measure into law in April and it is due to go into effect on 29 July.

But the justice department, which filed its case in a federal court in Arizona, has asked for its implementation to be delayed until the case is resolved.

"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the legal challenge says.

"The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

A spokeswoman for Ms Brewer described the administration's move as a "terribly bad decision", saying the state had a "terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed".

Arizona's Republican Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain also criticised the decision to sue their state.

"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," they said in a joint statement.

The law was passed after years of frustration in the state over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug-trafficking and violent kidnappings.

In a speech on immigration reform last week, Mr Obama warned of the possibility of other states following Arizona's lead.

"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," he said.

"A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

The Arizona law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants not to carry their immigration documents and bans day labourers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

It 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.

...Going around SCOTUS for this, I see. ;)

This will be an interesting event... Arizona claims the government doesn't enforce its job so they must do it for them, and then the feds just retaliate by saying it's not their place to actually enforce federal laws... :crazyeye:

Or that's the simplified version I hear a lot of, anyway. :dunno:

Law probably could be better, but so long as it applies to anybody who was already doing something illegal, I don't have much of a problem with it; it's not like dragging a person off the street randomly and asking for papers... criminals do not have the same rights as innocent people.

I agree we need a single, unified standard on this... now, enforce it, and you just might have a point, Mr. O.
 
If the conservative judges and justices are consistent on preemption, they will side with the U.S. on this.
 
I love how a motion that the US government SUPPORTED is being sued BY the government. Just goes to show you what a crazy world we live in. :crazy:
 
I'm here in the thick of it; not sure what will take place but the movers and shakers of Arizona (and beyond) are flooding a war account to fight this.

It'd be nice if this Obama character moved on immigration while moving on a state. Won't happen though; people in most parts of the country are far too insulated to care.
 
I love how a motion that the US government SUPPORTED is being sued BY the government. Just goes to show you what a crazy world we live in. :crazy:

Well I've heard here before that very often, the Republican Party does this: they help put together proposals with the Democrats, and then shoot them down when the issue comes to a vote... :crazyeye:

Dunno how true it is; CFC isn't balanced enough for me to take everything at face value. Indeed, nothing is. :p

And from what I heard on the radio - from reporters, not talkshow hosts - was that the administration did say they're concerned about racial profiling, but their real problem with the law is that it violates the federal government's constitutional rights to regulate immigration.

...in before conservatives talk about how ironic it is that a Democratic government tries to invoke the Constitution for its actions. :mischief:
 
So how does this usurp the federal gov't's authority over immigration policy? Does the AZ alter the way immigration is handled, I thought it was just about being more proactive over the enforcement of laws concerning illegal-aliens?

And how much leeway do states have concerning federal laws anyway? The federal government has firearm laws, and each state has it's own laws about firearms, and a lot of cities have firearm laws. How is this different in terms of one being constitutional and the AZ law not?
 
The Arizona law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants not to carry their immigration documents and bans day labourers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Yeah. This is all about safety, security, and the feds not doing enough under Obama to stop the supposed lawlessness, alright.

I'm here in the thick of it; not sure what will take place but the movers and shakers of Arizona (and beyond) are flooding a war account to fight this.
So they are planning to bribe the judges who might hear the case?

It'd be nice if this Obama character moved on immigration while moving on a state. Won't happen though; people in most parts of the country are far too insulated to care.
Not sure what this means. But if you are suggesting that Obama declare martial law and arrest all the bigots for deliberately violating the civil rights of Latino Americans, I'm all for it.
 
Once again, if the federal government took its responsibility to secure the borders seriously, maybe the states wouldn't have to make laws like this.
 
So you think it would be perfectly acceptable for states to also violate the Constitution by declaring war on terrorism because the feds aren't doing enough?

I really don't think the personal opinions of a few "law and order" conservatives that the feds are suddenly not doing enough under a Democrat president is sufficient reason to defy the law.
 
Never did I say the states were right in doing so. But the point is, people are angry that the federal government is abandoning them, and it leads to the states doing things like this.
 
Law probably could be better, but so long as it applies to anybody who was already doing something illegal, I don't have much of a problem with it; it's not like dragging a person off the street randomly and asking for papers... criminals do not have the same rights as innocent people.

The vast majority of "lawful contact with policeman" is no doubt petty traffic/pedestrian stops. In that case this law can affect anyone. Not just criminals.
 
Never did I say the states were right in doing so. But the point is, people are angry that the federal government is abandoning them, and it leads to the states doing things like this.
The idea that all this may just be yet another example of partisan Republican politics hasn't crossed your mind? That there is really no difference between the law enforcement efforts of the current administration in this matter and the previous administration? That the Border Patrol has actually grown substantially since 9/11? That nobody is actually being "abandoned"?
 
So you think it would be perfectly acceptable for states to also violate the Constitution by declaring war on terrorism because the feds aren't doing enough?

Or legalizing gay marriage because the feds aren't doing enough?
 
Once again, if the federal government took its responsibility to secure the borders seriously, maybe the states wouldn't have to make laws like this.

This. I mean look at all the illegals that get in. The federal government isn't quiet doing it right it seems. And I love it when people bring up racial profiling. They have to profile to some extant, Arizona's illegal problems are mainly from south of the boarder.
 
The idea that all this may just be yet another example of partisan Republican politics hasn't crossed your mind? That there is really no difference between the law enforcement efforts of the current administration in this matter and the previous administration? That the Border Patrol has actually grown substantially since 9/11? That nobody is actually being "abandoned"?

partisanship is politics, both parties do it so stop trying to act like the democrats are some shining beacons of responsible and moral leadership. Both parties are crap and not doing enough. And since whatever small expansion of border patrol doesn't seem to have helped in any way, obviously they're still not doing enough.
 
You mean just like GWB didn't do enough? Why have they suddenly decided to whine about it so much more now? You do realize all this was triggered by the federal investigations of the clearly bigoted and apparently quite corrupt Maricopa County sheriff, right?
 
You mean just like GWB didn't do enough? Why have they suddenly decided to whine about it so much more now? You do realize all this was triggered by the federal investigations of the clearly bigoted and apparently quite corrupt Maricopa County sheriff, right?

No, he did not do enough. Now when someone tries to do more, The Gov't wants to kill it.
 
Because they're idiots, so what, why have democrats given up the "the debt is killing us" groans?
Because the other alternative was a deep recession, if not depression, due to the bungling of GWB and a Republican Congress?

No, he did not do enough. Now when someone tries to do more, The Gov't wants to kill it.
Securing the border is not the responsibility of the states. Neither is deliberate harassment of Latino Americans.
 
Obama has had plenty of time. Now, he wants to spend it killing reform, when he could be working on it.
 
Top Bottom