The Department of Justice filed suit Tuesday, asking a federal judge to block Arizona's new law aimed at illegal immigrants from taking effect.
Legal papers filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix contend SB 1070 "is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution." The lawsuit says the legislation conflicts with the federal government's need to balance the competing interests of enforcing federal immigration law with the country's diplomatic relations with other countries, including Mexico.
"SB 1070 ... attempts to second-guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the condition of an alien's entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest," wrote Assistant Attorney General Tony West who heads the civil division of the Department of Justice.
But Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who crafted the law and pushed it through the Legislature, said the lawsuit has only one purpose.
"This is about the Obamas' policy of non-enforcement," he said. "This interferes with their plan for amnesty."
He said the administration has no interest in dealing with illegal immigration itself and now wants to block Arizona from doing what the federal government refuses to do.
"They are complicit," he said of the administration.
"They are aiding and abetting the enemy," Pearce said, and are violating their oath of office. "They ought to be impeached."
Gov. Jan Brewer, in a prepared response, said she believes the law is "both reasonable and constitutional."
She also rejected the contention that SB 1070 is preempted by federal law, saying it is "designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws."
Brewer said she was glad the federal lawsuit did not claim the law will lead to racial profiling, a claim in some of the five other lawsuits already filed challenging the law.
But that may be just a temporary victory: A top justice department official said Tuesday that's a separate legal issue. He said if SB 1070 does take effect as scheduled on July 29, his agency's civil rights division will monitor how the law is implemented and, if necessary, file a separate action.
Pinal County Attorney James Walsh said the latest filing may be stronger than the other five lawsuits.
He said one of the key arguments in all of them is whether federal laws preempt the Arizona statute. But Walsh, a former assistant state attorney general, said none of the plaintiffs in those other claims may have legal standing or ability to show any specific harm on the issue of federal supremacy, something the federal government is not required to prove.
The law requires police who have stopped someone to check their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in this country illegally. It also imposes criminal penalties on foreigners who fail to federally register or carry their immigration documents.
Other provisions make it a state crime for undocumented workers to seek employment in Arizona and for people to knowingly harbor or transport those who are illegal immigrants.
Central to the case is whether the Arizona law interferes with what West said is the need of the federal government to decide exactly how and when to enforce immigration laws.
"Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal immigration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest," West wrote. "But it is not the singular goal of federal immigration laws."
He said the laws also take into account "uniquely national interests" like facilitating trade and commerce, welcoming foreign nationals who visit, and making sure the treatment of foreign nationals here "does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad."
Pearce said SB 1070 simply lets the state enforce existing federal immigration laws. But West said that's not the case.
For example, he said federal law does make it illegal to hire an undocumented worker. And there are separate laws aimed at would-be workers who present fraudulent documents.
But nothing in any of those laws, West said, makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek work.
"In fact (Congress) decided that criminal sanctions for seeking or obtaining employment would run counter to the purposes of the immigration system," he wrote.
Pearce said West is off base with his objections.
"It's a felony to hire them," he said. "So it ought to be a crime to solicit."
West had similar problems with the requirement of police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in this country illegally. At the same time, SB 1070 also says any legal Arizona resident can file suit against any official or agency that adopts or implements a policy that restricts enforcement of federal immigration laws.
He said that undermines what had been the discretion of police on whether to verify someone's immigration status. Nor was West convinced that the requirement for "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient to protect rights.
"Arizona's alien inspection scheme therefore will subject lawful aliens to the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance, a form of treatment which Congress has plainly guarded against in crafting a balanced, federally-directed immigration enforcement scheme."
Both Brewer and Pearce also chided the Obama administration for what they see as a selective approach to claiming federal supremacy in enforcing immigration laws. Pearce said that ignores various local policies and practices that now instruct police not to inquire about someone's immigration status.
"These patchwork local ‘sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials," Brewer said.
In a prepared statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said Arizonans "are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration." And he said the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns.
"But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety," the statement said.
"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Holder continued. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano pointed out that, as Arizona governor, she vetoed similar bills.
"They would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve," her statement said.
Accuracy posted at 10:08 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
The lawsuit that is expected to be announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano against Arizona for enforcing their own illegal-immigration policy and for attempting to defend their state borders from the drug wars taking place.
This would not only be major litigation, but it is an issue that will very likely end up at the Supreme Court of the United States.
The lack of effective federal illegal-immigration enforcement is what prompted Arizona (and nine other states looking at exact same legislation) to take action.
vive la USA posted at 10:18 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Lets hold the trial outside and in the middle of the night in Nogales, AZ. We should insist on very little security since it is not needed.
AZMomma posted at 11:07 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
It is disgusting that our President would prefer to pander to foreign governments (Mexico) than to protect the citizens he has sworn to protect.
Ditto for Holden and Napolitano.
Obama will guarantee his ONE TERM fate with this move, but given the mood of the American voting populace, I shudder to think of the Neo-nuts who are waiting to take his place.
They need to hang their heads in shame.[sad]
pgillenw posted at 12:00 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Yet another wasteful spending action by the Federal Government. Monies would better be spent upholding the current immigration legislation at the Federal level.
Our country has been invaded by Illegals who have no respect for the laws of this sovereign United States. Rule of Law has been replaced by shouting Illegals demanding that we throw out our laws for their purposes.
The Federal Government should be instead demand that the failed state of Mexico clean up its country and provide its citizens a safer country and a better way of life rather than sending its citizens to the U.S. in order to receive more subsidies in the form of remittances sent back to Mexico by the Illegals. These remittances are in the millions, they rob the Arizona economy further.
The Federal Government has no mandate to usurp a States law.
SunWorshiper posted at 12:29 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Can the (legal) Citizens of AZ and other States file a "Friend of the Country's Principles" counter lawsuit against the Fed Govt's lawsuit? Howz that work???
pnutman posted at 1:03 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
It appears the State has a pretty good case in relating to the fact that since the Reagan Admin. to date, the State has a myriad of facts in alleging the Govt. has failed "miserably" in not enforcing not only our Borders and Ports, but "wink-winked" on enforcing Employer sanctions.
Example (s) but not limited to;
Fed's did not make it mandatory for all States to mandate "E" Verify employment. Sigh?
Arizona has a record (written-visual) of all Drop house's uncovered, all illegal alien's apprehended;
letter's from the present and former governor's (including the present Dir. of Homeland Security Janet N.) relating to our plight on illegal alien's, cost to the state, and countless examples to show the increase of illegal alien's in this country since Pres. Reagan played the amnesty game and that my friend goes back to mid 1980.
A slam dunk if it goes to the Supreme Court. Arizona 1 U.S. Govt. ZERO....
RollerCam posted at 1:12 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Remember, the states created the federal government, not the other way around.
The Obama regime is going to have their collective asses handed to them by the states.
pnutman posted at 2:30 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Obama's "Girlies" are hanging their hat on the "Supremacy Clause" which I feel is a "Stretch" in this situation--As one reason, we are in "Bed with the Feds" in complying with the same law that they are not enforcing adequately. "BO" and his catering to Illegals for the votes from the Spanish, Latino, Hispanic or whatever folks---it is Political and any Judge worth their weight, can see it when it comes to ruling on the LAW......Janet would be a GREAT witness for Arizona if she can keep her nose from growing on the stand eh?
Masterrogue666 posted at 3:20 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Vive la USA- Great idea! Perhaps Brewer should invite President Obama to observe....
Masterrogue666 posted at 3:24 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Maybe 70% of US citizens should not pay their FEDERAL taxes next year! Maybe then, the federal government will listen to us....
apriltwenty posted at 3:32 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Az is being destroyed by russell pearce and his croneys. Our state is almost bankrupt and our education system is last in the nation. Immigration is being used as a smokescreen to distract us from the incompetence of our politicians. Pearce needs to be un-elected. He is a symbol of bigotry. Barry Goldwater would be ashamed of pearce and those who vote for him,
Rich posted at 3:39 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Funny how people work against their own ideas and goals. A patchwork of local and state "immigration laws" will only augment the problem. Only a Federal and comprehensive approach will work. Why decry the solution to support something that becomes a part of the problem? States can't declare war and they can't make immigration law. Eventually, if it goes that far, the Supreme Court will tell everyone so. Meanwhile, it can get worse or it can get better, but not by destroying the governmental structures built to deal with it.
SunWorshiper posted at 4:47 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
AprilTwenty - There's a special report summary online at www.foxnews.com on a state by state basis that compares each state's deficit, the est cost for having illegals in that state, and the "gap" between the two. It also mentions that educating the illegals' kids is one of the biggest expenses to each state, among other things. It gives the tax $$ burden to each "legal" household in the U.S.
I think you should take a look at that, then decide whether there may be a correlation between AZ being broke and AZ education being at the bottom of the rung. And maybe rethink which "politicians" may be dragging the state/country down. [wink]
hillstreet posted at 5:24 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Hell must be freezing because I never thought I'd ever agree with BO on anything! As I said it before, this law will be declared unconstitutional either in circuit court or in the SC, wait for it....
Rich knows it, I know it, the rest will have to learn it the hard way. Anti-immigrant hate does not case law make.
forkedlift1 posted at 11:24 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
I know it too, Hillstreet. I read the 26-page lawsuit filed by the feds earlier today (there's a link to it on the New Times article reporting on the suit). It naturally covers the three major constitutional issues -- the Supremacy Clause, preemption and interstate commerce -- but it also covers the many parts of SB 1070 that far exceed anything ever contained in federal immigration law, are unrelated to the federal law, or are counter to federal immigration law.
In other words, in no way is it a "mirror image" of federal immigration law.
I felt it imperative that the feds file that action, not only to get rid of Arizona's unconstitutional law but perhaps more importantly to prevent other states from following suit since many have apparently expressed an interest in also doing their own thing by creating their own immigration laws. The "patchwork" problem was also addressed in the suit.
Particularly meaningful here is the point made by Pinal County Attorney Jim Walsh about standing, that this filing may be stronger than the five other lawsuits because standing is something the federal government is not required to prove.
Reading the far out comments from Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer made me wonder if any residents living in other states had any way of coming across this article, and if so, what they thought.
For example, "They are aiding and abetting the enemy," Pearce said, and are violating their oath of office. "They ought to be impeached."
I imagine there might be more than one comment like, "Hey Martha, there must be something in those people's drinking water out there in Arizona. They're all crazy."
AZMomma posted at 6:24 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
There - fat face front & center with her hoof firmly grasping a microphone, is our very own Mary Rose Wilcox - the Princess of LaRata. (ooops, La Raza)
What a woman ! Repeatedly re-elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, she is primo porko at the public trough.
Never around nor heard from when they discover a child abandoned in a Drop-House. Never hear of her asking for a Car Wash to help open a Shelter for abused (Hispanic) Women.
Someday, this useless example of career vermin will be dumped from office..we can only hope [sad]
Hellraiser posted at 6:34 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
Obama is a moron! Only cares about other countries and kisses their behind. What a looser along with everyone else that is against this law. I would bet that they haven't even read it. This country is in sad shape!
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:27 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
"federal government to decide exactly how and when to enforce immigration laws" -- Excuse me, I thought the law was the law. Laws are meant to be enforced only when the "King" said so. It's the will of the people. And right now, 70% or more say to ENFORCE the law...
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:15 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
apriltwenty wrote: "Our state is almost bankrupt and our education system is last in the nation." -- Gee, maybe the FACT that we are educating so many ILLEGAL ALIEN children, and anchor babies has something to do with it....
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:17 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
Rich: That is the problem. The Federal government doesn't want to deal with it...
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
hillstreet/forked: Again, it's not "Anti-immigrant hate", but I would agree to Invasion by foreign nationals, or ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion.....
hillstreet posted at 8:39 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
forkedlift- Pearce is just an old fashioned racist who showed his "colors" when he started associating with the National Socialist Movement and JT Ready (and unethical, remember MVD?), he can't help himself. Every time I see him on the tube I can't help of thinking of Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard.
Brewer is about as dumb as a box of rocks, every time she opens her mouth I cringe about what moronic statement she will make next. She figures the anti-illegal vote will put her back in office.
I just read the lawsuit and it is on solid legal grounds; the unconstitutional aspects of 1070 alone will carry the lawsuit forward
.
Rich posted at 10:31 am on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
Mr. 666
"Rich: That is the problem. The Federal government doesn't want to deal with it..."
They deal with it daily. If you and others like you continue to follow an irrational, fanatic and frankly somewhat racist program you will force them into an amnesty program, which is where Pearce, Brewer and the rest are headed. Read the above carefully, immigration is a broad based, national, international, commercial, humanitarian issue. Which is the way the Federal government deals with it. To take off as Pearce, Brewer and company do, on a single issue, of many, concerning it becomes counter-productive and really is only meant to cover-up their incompetence in other areas of their responsibilities.
Unless they can be reined in, amnesty has to be the only move the Federal government can make to restore control of a national, international, commercial and humanitarian issue that they bear exclusive responsibility for. If you allow them the control they need to handle it, amnesty will probably not become a necessity. If you continue to support the fringe, tunnel-vision of people like Pearce, it probably will.
cheetah13 posted at 12:26 pm on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
What is it that you sheeple don't understand. The "anchor baby" amendment was created in the days of slavery. What it did was make it that ex-slaves would be recognized as citizens.
This was never intended as a loop hole for all the illegal immigrants.
It actually needs to be amended and taken off the books.
WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!
teek64 posted at 2:18 pm on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
It really doesn't matter if Obama stops SB 1070 from going into effect...the ball is rolling..the stone has been cast...alot of Politicians are now worried about their losing their seats. Employers are now thinking about the consequences from their patrons and peers if they continue to employ illegals, tax paying, legal voters are now watching their representatives like a hawk, so even if Obama wins this suit, he still loses no matter which way you look at it!
Masterrogue666 posted at 2:42 pm on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
Rich wrote: "If you and others like you continue to follow an irrational, fanatic and frankly somewhat racist program" -- You just can't help yourself, can you?
Want an I opening experience? Read the report here:
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921
I'm about half way through it. Amnesty isn't a good option, and although you think my opinion is guided by fanatism and racism, it isn't. However, I do wonder about your opinion....
ArizonaRising posted at 4:49 pm on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
If I want to move into an apartment, what do I have to do? Fill out an application and get approved. What if I just decide I'm going to move in and disregard the application process altogether? Would I be arrested for just moving in after kicking in the door? Do I have ANY right to say I can stay in the apartment after this criminal action? What would be made of people who say I can stay and threaten the apartment community and police if they arrest me for my crime?
This is, in microcosm, what the immigration issue is all about.
The criminals in DC do not want to arrest and deport people who have proverbially kicked in the door and moved in to this nation. These are the same people who claim to have learned the lessons of 'imperialism' and 'colonialism' , while they perpetuate it around the world and here at home for their own destructive ends. A nation and civilization are maintained, in part, through enforced laws.
Mr. Obama and his masters simply do not feel they have to enforce nor follow the laws of this nation or any nation. The same federal laws on the books are what they are suing Arizona for enforcing. The treasonous criminals have exposed themselves and it's time to clean house in this nation. Arizona has set the example for the rest of the nation and it's time America as a whole sets a good example for the rest of the world.
Rich posted at 6:19 pm on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
Mr. 666
The problem taken as a whole involves several aspects you don't consider. You can't find, arrest and deport over 11 million people using our entire armed forces and respecting the Constitution. You can't seal a border the size of even our southern border, much less the whole border, which would be used if we could seal the southern one. The solution is fanatical. And seeing that the only subjects of your ire are south of us, objectively there has to be a racist element. That's just on its face. One and one is two, not sometimes, all the time.
You're not looking at the entire problem, which involves international relationships, commerce even if you leave humanitarian aspects out. The price you pay for produce in the store is low because these people are here. You profit from them every time you buy groceries. It is a multi-faceted problem with literally hundreds of unintended consequences, so your reach for a single, simple solution is really only scapegoating and fanatical.
When you have eliminated everything else, what remains must be the case.
allamer posted at 10:16 pm on Wed, Jul 7, 2010.
So, the federal lawsuit states that the federal government needs to balance law enforcement with diplomatic relations with other countries, like Mexico. Well actually the government MUST enforce our laws and Constitution. There is no "balancing" our laws with diplomacy. Laws must be enforced by the government; it is not optional. So, this means that the Attorney General is saying that he is deliberately NOT enforcing our laws in the name of diplomacy! Well, I'm glad that we cleared that up!
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:27 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Rich: You're not Sherlock Holmes, and I'm not a racist. Just because I don't agree with YOUR opinion doesn't make me so. Try reading this:
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921
I'm not done reading the report. However, it's very informative. Granting amnesty again would cause more harm. We need real fences on the border (which would create jobs). It won't stop all the invaders, but would reduce them to manageable levels. We need to change the an old law to handle modern problems. I. E. no anchor babies. There should be real teeth to force businesses to hire LEGAL workers. Make harsher penalties for coming into the USA illegally. These changes can be done, and should be done. Over 70% of US citizens are tired of the status quo, are over 70% fantics?
Rich posted at 11:18 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Figures don't lie but liars figure. You don't know how many there are, any such statistics are wholly bogus. Furthermore, just given the price we pay for a head of lettuce, as opposed to what we'd pay without them, we're all in the plus column. An assertion as valid as any made in the report.
The number of "illegals" is nebulous, you can't have statistics that start at nebulous. One would have to be deeply prejudiced to even begin to accept the study as anything other than fanatical fantasies.
As to 70% that's nebulous too, hardly accurate, but even so as Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time." So 70% is basically just rather incompetent propaganda. Also I may be part of the 70% I answered a survey that asked if I favored foreign citizens committing crimes in the U.S. and said "no." Most of the 70% is average people answering hyperbole.
forkedlift1 posted at 1:00 pm on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Rich, thanks for pointing to some "pollsters" methods of obtaining their desired results which are then conveyed to the media for propaganda purposes.
My wake-up call concerning these Rasmussen polls was in their omission of one of the four Republican gubernatorial primary candidate's names, asking those called their choice of only three candidates.
I'm quite sure that 70% number came from a Rasmussen "poll."
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:07 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
Rich stated: "You don't know how many there are, any such statistics are wholly bogus." -- Well, since NO ONE really knows how many ILLEGAL ALIENS there are in the USA, of course it's guesswork. Anyone with the least bit of logical mind would know that.
I find the info reasonable, as well as conservative. After all, FAIR estimated 2 children per household. Considering how many times I've heard "we are going to outbreed you" from La Raza, et al types, 2 children IS conservative.
So FAIR's report is "deeply prejudiced"? The information is gathered from a multitude of reports. That's why it has an endnotes list of 5 pages. Let's see what groups you just called "wholly bogus" and "deeply prejudiced". I'll list just a few:
- U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs
- U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning
- National Academy of Sciences
-Center for Immigration Studies
-The Heritage Foundation
- The Urban Institute
Shall I go on? I'm quite sure I could find more.
It's OBVIOUS that you didn't even read the report. As I expected, you automatically declared it "bogus" and "prejudiced" just because it's counter to your opinion.
Finally, your statement:
"you can't have statistics (a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data) that start at nebulous (indistinct, vague)". Tell me, o "paragon" of knowledge, which one's SPECIFICALLY did you find "nebulous"?
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:11 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
forked: I forgot to mention (at a different article) something else I found funny. You claimed that your opposition uses multiple logons to "game" the polls. Besides what I've already mentioned, which group do you think is more likely to do that. Group 1: Supporters of law and order. Group 2: Those that break the law(s), and those lawbreaker's supporters.
Interesting how you think only the opposition is guilty of it. You should be a comedian!