Federal Case Against Arizona Immigration Laws Underway

[JaJae]

Obama's Justice Department is arguing its case to a federal judge appointed by the Democratic Party. A core component of the Obama Justice Department's argument is the idea of "preemption." Their argument is that the law will cause "irreparable harm" to federal immigration enforcement. The judge heard the argument yesterday and basically wasn't having it.

Originally Posted by Susan Bolton

Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?

Originally Posted by Susan Bolton

How is there a preemption issue? I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Link to judge's comments?

[JaJae]

Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins

[Swift]

LOL, I really hope it goes to the supreme court and it's upheld. This is the stupidest thing Obama has done. It's quite obvious that if the feds were doing the job adequately then there would be no need for this law.

[northhunter]

Call me crazy but in this post 9/11 world I can't really understand why every person arrested in any state isn't checked for their status. It should be a routine part of identification.
Unless of course there is no real desire to do anything about actual security or illegial aliens then it makes perfect sense.

[ksu_aviator]

Did you guys read the article? I was shocked by how flimsy the federal government's arguments were. Here:

Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests.

In other words...we don't want to enforce the law but Arizona is making us.

If that's all they've got, this case is as good as won...for Arizona.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ksu_aviator

Did you guys read the article? I was shocked by how flimsy the federal government's arguments were. Here:



In other words...we don't want to enforce the law but Arizona is making us.

If that's all they've got, this case is as good as won...for Arizona.

Yea I thought it was pretty messed up that they would even say that publicly.

[Swift]

This just goes to prove the governments agenda. They are not worried about law enforcement, but keeping their jobs and/or having a lobbyist position waiting for them if they lose.

It's truly amazing...

[Salty Dog]

I saw most of Central and South America oppose the Arizona law. Gee, I wonder why?

No, not that it's race based. That's the cover they make to sell the argument.

[Pro Street]

This case is pure political posturing and completely asinine. I have every bit of confidence to SCOUTS will size with Arizona on this.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

This case is pure political posturing and completely asinine. I have every bit of confidence to SCOUTS will size with Arizona on this.

Auto-correct for the win

[Stylerod]

Maybe this is obvious to some. But do you think Obama (Democrats) are really trying NOT to win but just making a show so they will still get latin support in the elections? Sort of a win/win for them if they fail.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Auto-correct for the win

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Maybe this is obvious to some. But do you think Obama (Democrats) are really trying NOT to win but just making a show so they will still get latin support in the elections? Sort of a win/win for them if they fail.

That doesn't really make much sense.

TBH both parties act outlandish in positions. The anti-gay marriage amendment idea comes to mind.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Maybe this is obvious to some. But do you think Obama (Democrats) are really trying NOT to win but just making a show so they will still get latin support in the elections? Sort of a win/win for them if they fail.

As outlandish as they may sound, it actually may be part of their strategy. Obama has lost alot of support from the Baby Boom generation, but still maintains a sizable backing from the 18-35 yo demograph.

But the way Obama and his administration have addressed this issue should do little to convince pro-immigration supporters of their will to fight for their cause. Obama's argument, as stated in the document above, is utterly laughable.

[Donkey®]

Flimsy government arguments?


Winning.



Appeals court upholds block on parts of Ariz. immigration law - The Washington Post

Originally Posted by article

Appeals court upholds block on parts of Ariz. law


By Jerry Markon, Monday, April 11, 2:51 PM
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the most contested provisions of Arizona’s immigration law will remain blocked from taking effect, handing the Obama administration a victory in its efforts to overturn the legislation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that put on hold key provisions of the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people whom they have a “reasonable suspicion” are illegal immigrants. The measure has triggered a fierce national debate.

In the 2-1 decision, the court found that U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton “did not abuse” her discretion in blocking parts of that law that would, among other things, require police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws.

The court ruled only on whether Bolton’s order should be upheld, not on whether the Arizona measure is legal, and the Justice Department’s move to have the entire law declared unconstitutional will proceed. But the judges gave strong indications that they accept the administration’s argument that the legislation is unconstitutional and would rule that way in the end.

“The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol,’’ Judge Richard A. Paez wrote in the majority opinion. “For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt.’’

Paez, joined by Judge John T. Noonan, used strong language as he appeared to endorse the administration’s position that Arizona’s law intrudes on federal immigration enforcement and is “preempted” by federal law.

“Arizona has attempted to hijack a discretionary role that Congress delegated to the Executive,’’ the decision said, adding that the Arizona law would “usurp” the U.S. attorney general’s role in directing any state enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Judge Carlos T. Bea dissented from parts of the decision.

The decision, the first appellate action on the much debated law that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed in April, is significant, experts said. But it is also one of the first steps in a legal struggle expected to play out over several years. Brewer has vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and could appeal Monday’s decision to the full 9th Circuit.

A spokesman for Brewer did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said the department is “pleased with the court’s decision.’’

In her July ruling, Bolton blocked provisions of the Arizona law that would require police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws, would allow for warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants and would criminalize the failure of immigrants to carry registration papers. Civil rights groups and federal lawyers had objected to those provisions in particular, while Arizona officials defended them as necessary to fight a tide of illegal immigration.

Bolton allowed other provisions to take effect, including one making it a crime to stop a car to pick up day laborers.

The Justice Department lawsuit, filed in July 2010, was a rare assertion of federal power that sets up a clash with a state on one of the nation’s most divisive political issues. The lawsuit said the Arizona measure conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status.

Lawmakers across the country had vowed to copy Arizona’s strict crackdown, but state budget deficits coupled with the federal challenge and the political backlash at the law, have made passage of such statutes uncertain.


markonj@washpost.com

Sound victory if you ask me.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Flimsy government arguments?


Winning.

Sound victory if you ask me.

Clearly the govt has enchilada sauce running through its veins. ..thus hoping to secure the latino vote for the next cycle.

[Donkey®]

Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona for now; strikes down other provisions - The Washington Post


Victory for the Obama admin...at least they got this one.

[Salty Dog]

I'm glad they upheld the right to question citizenship.

Too bad for Obama that Thursday's ruling will overshadow today.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

I'm glad they upheld the right to question citizenship.

Too bad for Obama that Thursday's ruling will overshadow today.

They've always had the right to question citizenship. When there was a question during a routine situation, they'd have to call the feds. Standard procedure. That provision doesn't change anything. The real problems with the law were the other 3 provisions...which were erased.


But then this happened:

States face uphill climb on immigration enforcement after court ruling, DHS shift | Fox News

Originally Posted by article

By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a Homeland Security official, the administration has determined those agreements are "not useful" now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement in Arizona -- with the state itself, and with three local law enforcement agencies.
The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.
And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.

And as far as Obama having an issue with Thursday's case...it's our problem if the law gets struck down...not Obama's. We have major issues and when someone stepped up to try and do something, it was shit on...even though the mandate was the Republican's idea to begin with.