Posted on 07/06/2010 4:24:39 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.
The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.
You can read the complaint HERE and the preliminary injunction brief HERE.
“The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line,” write Assistant Attorney General Tony West, United States Attorney Dennis K. Burke and others. “In acknowledged disagreement with the manner in which the federal government has regulated immigration and in contravention of these constitutional principles…The states are not permitted to set their own independent immigration policies, with varying and potentially conflicting enforcement systems and priorities. Were a number of states to act as Arizona has and strike out on their own, federal immigration policy and enforcement efforts would be crippled.”
The suit states that the Arizona law pursues only the goal of “attrition” while ignoring other objectives Congress has established for the federal immigration system.
You can read more about the lawsuit in THIS PIECE by Senior Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.
-Jake Tapper
UPDATE: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, released a statement saying: “Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders. If the President wants to make real progress on this issue, he can do so by taking amnesty off the table and focus his efforts on border and interior security. It is long past time for this administration to prioritize solving a crisis over imposing an agenda and the first step is to recognize that attorneys and amnesty are not acceptable alternatives to border security and job creation.”
Gov. Brewer, meanwhile, is soliciting donations to help defend the state from the Justice Department lawsuit, tweeting: "We will be very aggressive in defending our law. Donate to help keep AZ safe.”
How can one cripple policies and enforcement efforts which do not exist?
FYI
It really makes you wonder, doesn’t it? If they haven’t read the Arizona bill, did they ever read the Constitution or the Federal laws on immigration?
So the “profiling” screams from these crybabies doesn’t hold legal muster after all.
Holder made the decision to sue Arizona BEFORE he read the law. When he finally got around to reading it, imagine his reaction:
"HEY!!! Where's all the discrimination everybody told us was in that bill? ...Oops!"
“Dude, where’s my discrimination?”
The law doesn't to into effect until July 29th. So, there's no discrimination they can point to. They kinda jumped the gun on this one...
The good thing about this is that the quick preliminary injunction hearing essentially swallows up the case. In virtually every case of this kind, whoever wins the injunction hearing wins the case. This is especially true in a case that is almost entirely a question of law because the only claim filed was one of preemption. One of the showings necessary to win an injunction is “a substantial probability of prevailing on the merits.” Once the judge makes the determination that the plaintiff is or isn’t going to win on the merits, it is very rare that something could happen between that time and trial to make them change their mind. Bottom line: we should have a ruling in this case within a couple of months then it’s off to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
So when is holdover and numbutt going to start speaking in tongues? Oh, I forgot, they already are. None of them have a clue what the hell they’re doing in this administration. To top it all off barry doesn’t either.
“Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders.”
This quote from McConnel misses the point of the Arizona law. The law does not usurp on federal responsibilities. The law places restrictions on local governments in Arizona, effectively eliminating sanctuary policies. The law does not criminalize lack of documentation. The law simply states that if an illegal is guilty of trespassing if present in Arizona and in violation of UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
The feds do not like the law because it may cause more illegals referred to them for processing and verification of immigration status. Homeland Security has stated that they will not process individuals referred under this Arizona law. However, the rats know that they will receive lots of heat if they refuse to process individuals and the individuals later commit crimes.
The Arizona law does not give authority to determine immigration status, deport, grant visas, admit to the country, or any other function performed by ICE. I think the federal case against the law is weak. Obama knows the case is weak. Therefore, he is trying to push amnesty to stop other states from passing similar laws. Kennedy is the only hope for the Democrats to stop the law. Obama wants to replace him but he does not want to leave. If we get a favorable court ruling, states can take control of the immigration debate.
“Does Not Make Charges of “Discrimination”
Because the law is NOT discriminatory nor unconstitutional. Even if there was the slightest chance it was, wouldn’t the DOJ press it now? This vindicates SB1070.
They know exactly what they are doing.
I almost forgot about the oil spill since this law suit has been filed.
LIKE HELL IT DOESN’T MAKE CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION!!!
Section 2 of S.B. 1070 Will Result in the Harassment of Lawfully Present Aliens and is Therefore at Odds with Congressional Objectives...
...Section 6 of S.B. 1070 Extends Arizona’s Warrantless Arrest Authority to Out-of-State “Removable” Offenses and isPreempted Because it Will Lead to the Harassment of Aliens...
...Section 3 is Preempted Because it Seeks to Criminalize Unlawful Presence and Will Result in the Harassment of Aliens...
...Moreover, in pursuing this improper goal, the scheme imposed by Arizona is inconsistent with federal immigration laws and would result in the harassment of aliens who are lawfully present or whose presence is known and accepted by the federal government. As noted above, in many cases, aliens who are lawfully in the United States or seeking lawful status will not be provided documentation that satisfies federal regulations governing registration, and the federal government properly takes that fact into account in its enforcement of the registration statute. Section 3 thus conflicts with and otherwise stands as an obstacle to the provisions of federal law and policy allowing for certain types of humanitarian relief....
...Although ostensibly crafted to resemble the federal smuggling statute, Section 4 of S.B. 1070 and the provisions of Arizona law it amends conflict with Congress’s scheme concerning smuggling and regulation of the unlawful presence of aliens. Arizona’s smuggling laws will also result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens. They are therefore preempted...
...Arizona’s smuggling statute will also result in the harassment of lawful alien residents, conflicting with the federal immigration laws’ careful balance of enforcement and civil liberties articulated by the Court in Hines.
Fools.
Thomas Jefferson, the United States Declaration of Independence.
I don't see where the AZ law seeks to "regulate" immigration - it is merely applying current federal regulations.
Those in D.C. who refuse to follow the law to maintain do so for no other reason than to remain in power illegally.
In addition to punishment for not following the law and deporting the invaders, DUh-bama and his fellow LIEberal traitors should be impeached and promptly imprisoned for not building the fence...it’s in the law too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.