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

ABC News ^ | July 6, 2010 | Jake Tapper

[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.”

[Squantos]

This administration wouldn’t know constitutional if it bit em in the ass.....

Sorry sack of losers wasting tax dollars that should be spent on border security and deportation of illegals.

Doom on Obama Inc !

[Blood of Tyrants]

Well, the official policy is to NOT enforce immigration laws or protect the border. So ENFORCING the laws cripples the policy of non-enforcement.

But truthfully, the federal government will have a very hard time with this case. First, they are alleging that the law differs from federal law, which it does not. Second, they would have to prove that enforcing a law that is virtually identical to federal law inhibits the ability of the federal government to do it.

This is a likely to fail miserably since the states have hundreds of laws similar to but slightly different from federal law. Arizona would do well to argue that point and to say that if they cannot pass this law that reinforces federal law, then ALL state laws similar to federal laws, such as bank robbery or counterfeiting, are null.

[Squantos]

A keeper ........thanks !

[Vaquero]

ah....Cherubim!

[PapaBear3625]

Part of the power of the Obama administration is their ability to selectively enforce the law, to choose the enforce it against their enemies and refuse to enforce it against their allies (see, for example, the dropping of the case against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation). THAT is what they’re upset about. If other states take steps that would compel prosecutions that Obama would rather not happen, then his ability to reward friends and punish enemies is reduced.

[circlecity]

A security risk in granting the injunction would argue against it. One of the factors is that the public interest must be served by the granting of the injunction. Obviously, a security risk does not further the public interest. The crime statistics you mention would be irrelevant in this case. The only issue before the Court is whether the matters addressed in the Arizona statute are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. If so the Arizona is preempted from passing ANY laws on subject.

[Girlene]

Well, the official policy is to NOT enforce immigration laws or protect the border. So ENFORCING the laws cripples the policy of non-enforcement.

Well said. Getting into this suit, page 10,
"SB 1070 Represents an Unlawful Attempt to Set Immigration Policy at a State Level

Only the federal government may establish immigration policy-namely the process of determin[ing] who should or should not be admitted into the country."

If I'm reading this right so far, just because you came here under unlawful circumstances (i.e. illegal entry), the federal gov't alone will determine whether they want you to stay or be deported. They have total jurisdiction once you've arrived. Even determing whether you are an "unlawful alien" is considered forbidden by the Justice Department and DHS. It's theirs and theirs alone to question.

[manc]

a state does a law lawfully which enforces the Fed law and obama /cronies file a lawsuit

next they drop charges against black racists outside a voting place where they held sticks and used racist language

SICKENING, this admin does not care for the rule of law or this country, those idiots who voted for obama have let a race baiter in and now they stand there while racists are let go but those who break the law coming here are being helped

the Dem party is the party is the KKK, racists, scruffs, and those who hate this country

[circlecity]

I agree with your points and many have made similar observations. This is a weak case and there was no real reason to bring it beyond politics. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is interesting but it may be better to go straight to the injunction hearing, get a ruling on the merits,(either way) and move on up the judicial chain.

[manc]

has any of the GOP said put loud that they file a lawsuit over this but drop charges against black racists

one only has to look at who they sue and who they drop charges against to know where this admin and obama stands

[The Comedian]

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Girlene]

Getting into this suit, page 10,

Oops, should have been, page 13.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You got it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Then they lose on that, too, since the 287(g) already authorizes state and local LEOs to determine who is or is not in the country legally.

[Repeal The 17th]

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

It will be interesting to see how AZ defends this law against the ‘Supremacy Clause’.

I'm trying to find in the Constitution where it says the federal government "owns" immigration enforcement.

I see very few references, if any. Here is what I do see:

Article I Section 8 Clause 4:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Are they suggesting that a "uniform rule of Naturalization" includes violating those rules, and that such violations of the uniform rule are in their jurisdiction alone to enforce? Arizona is not establishing a rule of naturalization. What about people who come here illegally with no intention to naturalize? Do they fall under this?

Article I Section 8 Clause 10:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Are they saying that illegal entry into this country is an offense against the Law of Nations?

Amendment 14:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Amendment 14 talks about citizens. The last part of section 1 speaks to "person[s]" being deprived of due process. Sure, illegal "persons" will be deprived of liberty, but not without due process.

So unless we're talking about invasions, where in the Constitution is the power to enforce immigration that the Supremacy Clause is being used against Arizona?

-PJ

[Oceander]

You’re welcome!

[Rick_Michael]

obama admin: if we can’t do it, NO one can! We won’t let them!?

[Girlene]

Then they lose on that, too, since the 287(g) already authorizes state and local LEOs to determine who is or is not in the country legally.

Not sure what 287(g) is?? From what I'm reading, so far, the suit is saying that it is not legal to "criminally sanction" a person who is unlawfully present in a state (illegal alien) since it is not a federal crime. The JD is trying to say they have the right to allow certain people, whether they entered illegally or not, to stay or be deported based on their determination of their value, need, dangerousness, what-not.

I had no idea it is not a crime to be here "unlawfully". It IS a crime to enter illegally - I guess they have to catch you in the act. Otherwise, from the legal mumbo-jumbo I'm reading, the fed's can do what they want with you, regardless of what the states decide, once you've arrived.

[BobL]

The problem with attacking the bill as ‘discrimination’ risks getting the entire Civil Rights Agenda being thrown out the door in the Supreme Court. They are smart enough not to go there.