US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100706/pl_afp/usimmigrationpoliticsarizona_20100706202001/print

US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US government on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Arizona for a controversial immigration law which has been sharply criticized by America's neighbors and by the US administration.

A Justice Department statement said it was challenging the new state law in the courts because it hampered the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy.

It also placed significant "burdens" on federal agencies and law enforcement, the department argued.
Federal laws do not permit the development of a "patchwork of state and local immigration policies," it said.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," US Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.

Arizona, the Justice Department said, "crossed a constitutional line."

The Arizona law, due to take effect on July 29, makes it a crime to be in the state, which borders Mexico, without proper immigration papers and requires local police, who are not federal agents responsible for immigration matters, to determine if people are in the country legally.

US officials said they took the action after consulting with various law enforcement departments, chiefs of police, civil rights groups and other local officials.

Many said they were concerned the law would make victims of crimes or witnesses "less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement" if they did not possess proper legal papers.

Officials in Arizona argue they have been overrun by illegal immigrants leading to a spike in the crime rate and straining state resources. They say the measure was necessary only because of lax federal government enforcement of the southern US border.

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

However, he added, "diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety."

Meanwhile, Arizona's two US senators issued a joint statement slamming the lawsuit.

"The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law," Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement.

More than 60 percent of the US population supports Arizona's new immigration law, according to a recent opinion survey.

About 30 percent of Arizona's population of 6.6 million are Hispanic, one third of whom are foreign born, including 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in the statement that her staff was "actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of which (Arizona's) is one."

Obama on July 1 renewed his called for Republicans to back immigration reform to bring 11 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows, but his political foes quickly accused him of "political pandering" four months ahead of key legislative elections.

 

[Denny Crane]

Slam dunk win for the government here. The AZ law clearly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th.

 

[MARIS61]

Slam dunk win for the government here. The AZ law clearly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th.

How so?

Simply by protecting all of it's legal citizens equally?

It seems it is the US who has failed to protect it's citizens at all, instead it is criminals against the state who are being protected and coddled.

This will be the issue that rings the death knell for Obama's hope and change program, since a large majority of Americans support this law and will see the Fed's idiotic and grandiose move as anti-state, anti-white (no such leeway is afforded to illegal Scots or Slavs as is given daily to the millions upon millions of illegal Mexicans) and anti-Constitution.

 

[Denny Crane]

The 14th covers non-citizens too.

 

[Tortimer]

Slam dunk win for the government here. The AZ law clearly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th.

It might be a slam dunk but I have to agree with Maris on this one. Obama already has a lot issues that the vast majority of the country doesn't agree with and this might be the final straw.

 

[MARIS61]

The 14th covers non-citizens too.

I am aware of that, but where is the inequality?

As with legal citizens, breaking the law brings about consequences.

The Feds have already violated the 14th through decades of ordered and directed prosecution, or I should say non-prosecution of certain criminals based solely on their ethnic background.

Here in Beautiful Central Oregon the illegal alien community and it's thousands of criminal accomplices would easily qualify for prosecution under the criteria for organized crime and conspiracy laws.

Feds would have been wise to avoid this battle. Even if they win, they will lose big in the long run. The State's Rights movement will have a field day with this and I expect many revised versions of the AZ law will be popping up across the country.

 

[Denny Crane]

It might be a slam dunk but I have to agree with Maris on this one. Obama already has a lot issues that the vast majority of the country doesn't agree with and this might be the final straw.

It would help with those voters if he did more to guard the border, I guess.

The bottom line, though, is you can't send 13M or more people to Mexico forcibly (that's actually an international crime against humanity) and it really doesn't matter what the people want if it's wrong.

I think the AZ law violates the 4th, 5th, 14th, and Article I Section 8 (no bill of attainer)

 

[Denny Crane]

I am aware of that, but where is the inequality?

As with legal citizens, breaking the law brings about consequences.

The Feds have already violated the 14th through decades of ordered and directed prosecution, or I should say non-prosecution of certain criminals based solely on their ethnic background.

Here in Beautiful Central Oregon the illegal alien community and it's thousands of criminal accomplices would easily qualify for prosecution under the criteria for organized crime and conspiracy laws.

Feds would have been wise to avoid this battle. Even if they win, they will lose big in the long run. The State's Rights movement will have a field day with this and I expect many revised versions of the AZ law will be popping up across the country.

Per the constitution, Persons are entitled to a speedy trial, search by warrant specifying the specific place to be searched, due process, jury of one's peers, and right to face one's accuser. I'm probably missing a few others.

 

[Tortimer]

It would help with those voters if he did more to guard the border, I guess.

The bottom line, though, is you can't send 13M or more people to Mexico forcibly (that's actually an international crime against humanity) and it really doesn't matter what the people want if it's wrong.

I think the AZ law violates the 4th, 5th, 14th, and Article I Section 8 (no bill of attainer)

I don't agree with anything you just posted. Where in the hell does this law send 13m people back to Mexico? Crimes against humanity what is this a joke! What are you talking about they are here illegally and what is wrong with sending them back to the country they came from. You go and live in Arizona for a year and then talk to me about the immigration problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't agree with anything you just posted. Where in the hell does this law send 13m people back to Mexico? Crimes against humanity what is this a joke! What are you talking about they are here illegally and what is wrong with sending them back to the country they came from. You go and live in Arizona for a year and then talk to me about the immigration problem.

I'm not saying this law sends 13M people back to mexico, but that they do need to be dealt with. It is against the Geneva Conventions (the 4th convention to be precise) to force civilians out of the country. Geez, 13M people forced to migrate would be one of the greatest horrors in the history of humanity. You brought up "what is popular with the masses" and I hear people say all the time we should send them back to Mexico.

I live in San Diego, not far from the border.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

None of this would have come about if the feds had given the support to AZ they had promised. They cast AZ adrift and AZ had no choice but to protect themselves. The law is clearly imperfect, but it's a necessary one.

And I agree fully with Maris that while Obama may win this battle, in the end it may cost him the war.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not to be callous...how do you get sending illegal border-crossers back to their homeland into a Trail of Tears situation? And why do they have to be sent "home"? Why can't they start the immigration process, like every other person trying to come into the US? Are you saying that Federal Law and Statutes make it difficult for people to enter the country? Who's the executor of the Federal Law?

 

[Denny Crane]

Not to be callous...how do you get sending illegal border-crossers back to their homeland into a Trail of Tears situation? And why do they have to be sent "home"? Why can't they start the immigration process, like every other person trying to come into the US? Are you saying that Federal Law and Statutes make it difficult for people to enter the country? Who's the executor of the Federal Law?

I'm saying they're here, and we're stuck with that fact.

A forced migration (so-called sending them back to their country) of 13M people would set a modern record (certainly since 1900, probably since the dark ages).

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'm saying they're here, and we're stuck with that fact.

A forced migration (so-called sending them back to their country) of 13M people would set a modern record (certainly since 1900, probably since the dark ages).

Well, Texas has cattle drives and AZ can have Mexican drives. "Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep those doggies moving, rawhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide!


[video=youtube;Sl2fONPgIJE]

 

[Tortimer]

I'm not saying this law sends 13M people back to mexico, but that they do need to be dealt with. It is against the Geneva Conventions (the 4th convention to be precise) to force civilians out of the country. Geez, 13M people forced to migrate would be one of the greatest horrors in the history of humanity. You brought up "what is popular with the masses" and I hear people say all the time we should send them back to Mexico.

I live in San Diego, not far from the border.

I really don't think it will be a slam dunk. Lets just wait and see. I do think the Feds probably will win but I could see it going either way. Even with your scare tactics of sending 13m back to Mexico. I think probably 90% of all the countries in the world are not abiding by this Geneva convention. Even Mexico has a tougher immgration law then the US. Even if the Feds win the state of Arizona will just pass another law with the changes made that caused it to lose. This is probably going to be a good thing because all the states wanting to pass their own law will know exactly what to pass after this case.

 

[MikeDC]

Althouse rightly belittles the US Government's claim in its AZ lawsuit

"[T]he Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities."

According to the Washington Post, that assertion is at the core of the federal government's lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law. So... the federal government has massively failed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but at least the failure is spread fairly equally among the states. Even though Arizona may only want to take responsibility for its its own problem, it can't do that without referring the cases to the federal government and straining and unbalancing federal resources. The courts are supposed to buy the paradox: Because the federal government can't do very much about a problem — or chooses not to do much — an individual state can't act either, no matter how bad things get within that state.

In other words, the Federal government is arguing it should be able to refuse its constitutionally mandated duty to enforce its own laws, and states should be barred from trying to doing anything about it. That's pretty absurd, and a good explanation for why we're in such an untenable mess in the first place.

 

[Denny Crane]

The constitution says, "congress shall pass no bill of attainder, nor an ex post facto law."

A bill of attainder is "an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and punishing them" (per wikipedia).

 

[Tortimer]

My first comment about this was mainly just saying win or lose with this case it is a lose for Obama. He has already pissed off 50% of this country by passing Obama care with even changing the rules after the most liberal state in the country voted in the 41st senator just to stop Obama care and he still didn't listen. I really didn't think there is anyway Obama would be defeated in his second term but unless he changes his ways I can't see how he is going to be reelected.

 

[Denny Crane]

Althouse rightly belittles the US Government's claim in its AZ lawsuit


In other words, the Federal government is arguing it should be able to refuse its constitutionally mandated duty to enforce its own laws, and states should be barred from trying to doing anything about it. That's pretty absurd, and a good explanation for why we're in such an untenable mess in the first place.

I think he's quoting the Washington Post article, but there's a bit more to it than the supremacy argument:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

My first comment about this was mainly just saying win or lose with this case it is a lose for Obama. He has already pissed off 50% of this country by passing Obama care with even changing the rules after the most liberal state in the country voted in the 41st senator just to stop Obama care and he still didn't listen. I really didn't think there is anyway Obama would be defeated in his second term but unless he changes his ways I can't see how he is going to be reelected.

I agree with your political assessment here. However, it really would be refreshing to see a guy get elected and do the right thing - reelection be damned. Even if it's not popular.

From my POV, "democracy" is not all it's cracked up to be. It'd be tyranny of the majority. The majority in a true democracy could vote to make certain classes of people slaves. (This is just an example of how a majority could be tyrannical).

 

[Tortimer]

I agree with your political assessment here. However, it really would be refreshing to see a guy get elected and do the right thing - reelection be damned. Even if it's not popular.

From my POV, "democracy" is not all it's cracked up to be. It'd be tyranny of the majority. The majority in a true democracy could vote to make certain classes of people slaves. (This is just an example of how a majority could be tyrannical).

I sort of agree with you and sometimes no matter how unpopular something you need to do the right thing but IMO not the things Obama is doing. I do think sometimes you have to do something unpopular to protect the country. I don't want the President and Congress to do everything they want no matter what the majority of people want. We voted them in and we can vote them out. It almost looks like a "fuck you" all the stupid people don't know what is good for them with almost everything.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'm not saying this law sends 13M people back to mexico, but that they do need to be dealt with. It is against the Geneva Conventions (the 4th convention to be precise) to force civilians out of the country. Geez, 13M people forced to migrate would be one of the greatest horrors in the history of humanity. You brought up "what is popular with the masses" and I hear people say all the time we should send them back to Mexico.

I live in San Diego, not far from the border.

don't you live in Pacific Beach? that's like me saying I live near Inglewood, so I understand black-on-black crime.

 

[MARIS61]

Per the constitution, Persons are entitled to a speedy trial, search by warrant specifying the specific place to be searched, due process, jury of one's peers, and right to face one's accuser. I'm probably missing a few others.

How are any of these being denied them?

 

[MARIS61]

The bottom line, though, is you can't send 13M or more people to Mexico forcibly (that's actually an international crime against humanity)...

Of course you can, and it would be the single best action America could take to help Mexico progress into a stable country with a vibrant economy.

If Mexicans had no easy out in America maybe they would stay home and contribute some energy and sweat and brainpower to make their country a place worth living in. All we do by excusing their invasion is assure Mexico's eventual collapse into hell.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm not saying this law sends 13M people back to mexico, but that they do need to be dealt with. It is against the Geneva Conventions (the 4th convention to be precise) to force civilians out of the country. Geez, 13M people forced to migrate would be one of the greatest horrors in the history of humanity.

No more horror than their illegal migration has caused here in America.

I really think you underestimate their fortitude and ability to cope with domestic disruption.

Most of them have homes or family they lived with in Mexico, and many travel back and forth frequently. They are here for our money, our bennies, and to deal drugs, and they didn't even have the decency to ask if they could come. They are the single biggest drain on our economy and the reason our middle class has nearly disappeared into poverty and half our citizens cannot afford healthcare.

Your compassion is misplaced.

 

[MARIS61]

It is against the Geneva Conventions (the 4th convention to be precise) to force civilians out of the country.

The Geneva Conventions are the essential basis of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts.

They do not apply to domestic invasions where there is no armed conflict.

We have a Constitution and laws for that.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Geneva Conventions are the essential basis of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts.

They do not apply to domestic invasions where there is no armed conflict.

We have a Constitution and laws for that.

You're wrong about this point and all the others you raised in your previous posts. You claim Mexico or these immigrants are invaders and are at war with us of sorts.

And beyond the Geneva Conventions banning forced migration, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines forced migration as a crime against humanity.

No matter how it's written, the AZ law effectively makes it a crime to have brown skin (appear to be mexican), and it targets those people for no reason that I can see beyond Nationalism. It encourages police to find the least of reasons to harass people, which is not what a free country is about.

You accuse these people of committing crimes, yet I see no grand juries indicting them as they're arrested. I see no trial of juries to find them guilty of these heinous crimes you accuse them of.

You use "most of them" a lot, which is a means to dehumanize and demonize them, as if to make it OK to give them lesser treatment than is required.

 

[Tortimer]

You're wrong about this point and all the others you raised in your previous posts. You claim Mexico or these immigrants are invaders and are at war with us of sorts.

And beyond the Geneva Conventions banning forced migration, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines forced migration as a crime against humanity.

No matter how it's written, the AZ law effectively makes it a crime to have brown skin (appear to be mexican), and it targets those people for no reason that I can see beyond Nationalism. It encourages police to find the least of reasons to harass people, which is not what a free country is about.

You accuse these people of committing crimes, yet I see no grand juries indicting them as they're arrested. I see no trial of juries to find them guilty of these heinous crimes you accuse them of.

You use "most of them" a lot, which is a means to dehumanize and demonize them, as if to make it OK to give them lesser treatment than is required.

It is a crime to enter the US illegally.

 

[maxiep]

It would help with those voters if he did more to guard the border, I guess.

It's President Obama's responsibility to protect the border. He has chosen not to do so. In light of that intentional abdication of his responsibility, the people of Arizona have the right to protect themselves. If we were invaded by a foreign power and President Obama decided not to resist, the states would be well within their rights to activate their National Guards and form militias. All Arizona is doing here is asking people for ID. It's perfectly reasonable.

The bottom line, though, is you can't send 13M or more people to Mexico forcibly (that's actually an international crime against humanity) and it really doesn't matter what the people want if it's wrong.

So, if we were invaded by 13MM soldiers, we wouldn't have the right to resist and send them back to wherever they came from? Will German veterans of WWII now sue the countries they invaded because they were forcibly removed? As for being "an international crime against humanity", what precedent do you site, or is it just your opinion?

If we can give them health care, provide them education, we can certainly send them back. And send them back we should. Borders mean something. Without them, there are no nation-states and you have no sovereignty.

I think the AZ law violates the 4th, 5th, 14th, and Article I Section 8 (no bill of attainer)

And I think these people broke our laws by crossing the border illegally. We have a right to defend our borders, our territory and if their goal is to become voters, our sovereignty.

 

[maxiep]

I'm saying they're here, and we're stuck with that fact.

And many of us are saying they're here illegally, and we're stuck with that fact.

A forced migration (so-called sending them back to their country) of 13M people would set a modern record (certainly since 1900, probably since the dark ages).

It's not a forced migration if we're sending them home, no more than when my student visa expired and I had to head back to the States. Actually, there is a difference; I was actually there legally.

It would be akin to me moving into an unoccupied house and then crying about being forced to leave it when the owners found out I was squatting illegally.