Justice Department Sues Arizona for Immigration Law -- But Does Not Make Charges of "Discrimination"

ABC News ^ | July 6, 2010 | Jake Tapper

[Girlene]

Interesting points. Yes, it does seem federal agencies, state department, and the executive branch do want to reserve the right to pick and choose when to apply their enforcement, and how.

It seems that the suit says immigration policy is a tool that the federal agencies use for various purposes whether it's humanitarian relief, getting one illegal alien to turn in more dangerous drug traffickers, terrorists, what-not. They also cite foreign policy implications. Since the Arizona law requires mandatary criminal sanctions, the federal govt contends they cannot "balance" their priorities in carrying out enforcement.

In Section 1 C 1a, pg 26 to 29, the suit also contends SB1070 "WILL reuult in harassment of Lawfully present Aliens and is therefore at odds with Congressional objectives". Since the Arizona law removes LE discretion on whether or not to determine citizenship during an arrest or if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal, they contend that LE will harrass lawful aliens who may or may not have proof of legality on their persons. It also goes on to describe the "constant threat of police inquistion is not limited" to those who committ serious legal offenses but could include people that are jaywalking, riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, passenger in a car, etc. Riiiiggghhhttt.

[WOBBLY BOB]

Since their lame suit is based on premption, then anyone who prempts federal immigration in the affirmative (or negative) should be sued...that SHOULD include cities who afford “sanctuary” status to illegals.(which is prempting FEDERAL law )

[WOBBLY BOB]

Reality vs. Myth: SB1070

Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)

Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)

Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction

Reality vs. Myth: SB1070

Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.

Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)

Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.

Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.

Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.

Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”

A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.

The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.

Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.

Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.

The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).

Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725

[unixfox]

If the federal government does not want the states to enforce federal immigration law, could the states say O.K. we will cease enforcement of any and all federal laws.

And what about the "sanctuary" cities that are blatantly VIOLATING federal law? Hmmmmm....

[SeekAndFind]

I’m a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:

1. Pulled over by the police.

2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.

3. When I show up for a doctor’s appointment.

4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.

5. When applying for or renewing a driver’s license or passport.

6. When applying for any kind of insurance.

7. When filling out college applications.

8. When donating blood.

9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.

10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I’m out of state.

11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.

I’m sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day!

Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt!!!!!

Why shouldn’t we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does?

[SunkenCiv]

Excellent! Thanks WB.

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree.

What I'm pointing out is that the Supremacy clause does not mean that the Federal government is supreme in anything it deems to be supreme in.

The Supremacy clause says that anything delegated to the Federal government as a power from the Constitution is supreme. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where enforcement of immigration is a power delegated to the federal government, so a Supremacy clause challenge in the courts would actually be a challenge to the 10th amendment.

Besides, I cited the relevant federal code in this post (back in May) that gives Arizona the right to detain suspected illegal aliens for follow-up by federal authorities (Title 8 Chapter 12 Section 1324 (c) - Authority to arrest).

-PJ

[Repeal The 17th]

re: state/local enforcement of federal law...
-
I somehow can not picture folks
...tending to their moonshine stills
...counting their counterfeit money
...and guarding it all with a full auto machine gun
...and a short barrel sawed-off shotgun
with no concern for state or local law enforcement.

This could go on and on...
with federally mandated speed limits, blood alcohol levels, vehicle emissions, minimum wage, handicapped parking spaces, pollution emission limits, fishing limits, endangered species, wetlands, etc., etc,. etc.

I don’t think the feds really want local/state enforcement of federal law
to cease just because they got their panties in a wad over this one issue.

[PATRIOT1876]

Discrimination baloney!

We’re supposed to be concerned over the “unspeakable horror of a fellow human being having to show their ID?

OH! THE HUMANITY!!!

I’m a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:

1. Pulled over by the police.

2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.

3. When I show up for a doctor’s appointment.

4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.

5. When applying for or renewing a driver’s license or passport.

6. When applying for any kind of insurance.

7. When filling out college applications.

8. When donating blood.

9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.

10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I’m
out of state.

11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.

[unixfox]

I hope this turns around on them and bites them right in the ass.

[Cheerio]

that SHOULD include cities who afford “sanctuary” status to illegals.(which is prempting FEDERAL law )

and federal substance abuse laws, robberies of federally chartered banks, the list goes on and on. The fed law suit against AZ is nothing but hussein politics.

[Rockitz]

But Does Not Make Charges of "Discrimination"

Of course not- they only reserve that phony talking point for the media blitz.

[Always Independent]

Its funny the BO justice dept is saying that the Virginia lawsuit against the healthcare bill is not valid because the law isn’t even in effect yet. BUt they have no problem filing a lawsuit against a law that isn’t in effect either.

Someone needs to be DISBARRED.

[Track9]

Do we really think Zero and the boys would have filed so quickly given the obvious fallout they’re getting if they didn’t fear the very real chance of other states passing similar laws... I think they’re scared shirtless of the American people so they’re going to keep everything in court for as long as it takes to ‘normalize’ public opinion.

[Soothesayer9]

"That discrimination bit really tied the room together didn't it. Now its GONE."

[CanaGuy]

What a terrible waste of money. Hundreds of lawyers, all looking for their moment in the sun.

[olezip]

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a bold-faced power grab by the regime. It is aimed at intimidating and silencing all of the States and people into submission to the Obama Administration.

Islam means submission to (the will of) God (as determined by Imams).

[angelsonmyside]

Bump and Bookmarked

[spaced]

The Fed suit against Arizona is most definitely NOT about preemption. It’s political, plain and simple. If preemption were the problem, the Feds would go after the sanctuary cities, but they’re not. Of course, the fact that they have ignored pre-existing state/city laws that directly usurp federal law might present Arizona with a prong for their defense: precedent has existed for years.

[DrewsMum]

.