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.
Thank you. I like these kinds of arguments because I believe they more accurately reflect what the parties will assert.
That said, I believe AZ can show injury and that in the absence of federal remedy their law is necessary. They are not in appeals court so it is not I believe just a matter of law.
They are in federal court and will follow court rules there. They are defendants but they can countersue to show they are the injured party.
AZ can inquire as to a person’s residence of origin, the state or nation of origin for any criminal violator. AZ can enact laws that exclusively target criminals that are foreign nationals without legal presence. AZ can enact a law that effectively inprisons illegal immigrants indefinitely until an intervention by the federal government or by the government of the country the illegal originates from.
AZ has a lot of power and jurisdiction. I have read nothing of AZ deporting or processing aliens for any sort of immigration matter. I have read only of their law to detain criminals without legal residence until the federal government takes custody. So there is no preemption, the fed lawyers have concocted no substantial claim or material breach of jurisdiction, nothing other that AZ is somehow preempted from what? From investigating where a criminal originates from and detaining them until they are picked by the feds or are otherwise returned to their country of origin? If a criminal from TX is caught in AZ, the same process form takes hold in that AZ will coordinate with law enforcement in TX to return the criminal and transfer custody. It is no difference if the criminal is from Syria or Columbia, the criminal will be detained until returned from whence they came either by feds takiing custody or court order brought on by persons in the country of origin.
So I think the fed case is really weak because they cannot stop AZ from detaining criminals. remember the AZ law does not single out illegals, it investigates the origin of persons charged with a crime which it has jurisdiction to do. It has the jurisdiction to investigate and determine the identity and origin of persons charged with crimes. The AZ law says that those criminal suspects that cannot prove legal residence within the jurisdiction of the United States, such suspects can be detained.
Now if the AZ law said they could investigate any person of lawful residence without an accompanying criminal violation charge, then yes the feds would have a case. But the AZ law does not say that. The AZ law says that a person charged with committing a crime will also be investigated as to their identity and origin, be it Oklahoma or Columbia or any other place, and not necessarily for the purpose of deportation, but for the purpose of release back to the place of jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong in this line of prosecution that I can see.
And as many have already pointed out on the forum, the Holder lawsuit does not include any language of civil rights violations or discrimination. It only claims jurisdiction and supremacy. The legal arguments are not even there that address AZ’s law itself.