How can one cripple policies and enforcement efforts which do not exist?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
The People of the United States need to file a lawsuit against Eric Holder
It will be interesting to see how AZ defends this law against the ‘Supremacy Clause’.
I would wish that AZ pursue a defense that negates the Supremacy Clause by establishing that the US Goverment has been derelict and deliberate in its failure to enforce its laws, that States have the right to fill in the void created by a failing or derelict federal government.
Make no mistake, the Supremacy Clause is on trial here. The Constitution clearly states that laws enacted and that are in accord with the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land, but what if such laws are intentionally left unenforced or even subverted?
This is not a case of a state debating and disagreeing with the federal government on form, policy and style. This is a case about security and protection of residents and citizens.
The burden is on AZ and other states to show that the US Government has been willfully derelict. Against a litany of charges of derelict incidents, the federal government must respond and defend itself. The result will be that finally the federal government’s failure to act will be cast out in the open for all to see and hear. And we are going into election season, so this debate should be good for conservatives running for office.
The key is for AZ to present a strong case of security of its residents so that the judge in the case can deny the injunction, let the AZ law stay in place pending trial. That will allow the elections to proceed with a lower risk of massive illegal vote fraud.
But as in any high profile case, shopping for judges will be expected. I hope Governor Brewer’s AZ attorneys are ready to challenge any impartial judges and ask them to recuse themselves while the state finds a fair judge. Of course judges are supposed to be randomly signed, but we don’t believe in the tooth fairy either.
There are currently 26 Democrats, 23 Republicans, and 1 Independent holding the office of Governor.
That means at least 24 States could sue the Federal Government for NOT doing a major aspect of the job the Federal Government was formed Constitutionally to do.
This whole thing is bass-ackwards. The Fed is basically a management company for the States. (rather simplistic perspective, but.....) Let’s get it back in perspective.
Would those constitutional principles include Article II??? How are you doing with those principles???
Below is a site where we can donate to help Arizona fight the thugs of Lord 0haha!:
https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/index.xhtml
