posted
Justice Dept. sues, seeks injunction on Ariz. immigration law
The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona, charging that the state's new immigration law is unconstitutional and requesting a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect.
The lawsuit says the law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, invoking as its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility.
But the filing also asserts that the Arizona law would harm people's civil rights, leading to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.
"Arizona impermissibly seeks to regulate immigration by creating an Arizona-specific immigration policy that is expressly designed to rival or supplant that of the federal government," the Justice Department says in its legal brief. "As such, Arizona's immigration policy exceeds a state's role with respect to aliens, interferes with the federal government's balanced administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives."
It adds that the law "does not simply seek to provide legitimate support to the federal government's immigration policy, but instead creates an unprecedented independent immigration scheme that exceeds constitutional boundaries."
The Justice Department argues that the law would burden federal agencies, diverting resources from the pursuit of people implicated in terrorism, drug smuggling, gang activity and other crimes.
"The law's mandates on Arizona law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status," a news release said.
To support its case, Justice included declarations from Arizona law enforcement officials, including the police chiefs of Phoenix and Tucson, saying that the law would hamper their ability to effectively police their communities. The officials said crime victims or witnesses would be less likely to cooperate with law enforcement and that officers would have to be reassigned from critical areas to implement the legislation.
"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Holder said in a statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."
posted
This is all for votes for the Democrat Party. If Obama actually cared about the people down there he would be tough on enforcement, but since everyone wants cheap labor and votes then hey...
As always on this board, Obama can do no wrong, but this is wrong. He needs to do the right thing even if it means losing Mexican votes. La Raza is so deep in this administration it wont ever happen.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
posted
not beiring a constitutional lawyer? the technicalities of this case are difficult to sort...
the Arizona law does not *countermand* any Federal Law, so the Federal Lawsuit will most likely fail and Obama will have egg on his face for allowing it to go forward..
the supremacy clause is not being broken...
here it is: Article VI clause 2
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
notice the word contrary... that's the *operative* here... and nothing in the AZ law is *contrary* to federal law...
but there are other clauses that are affected too:
Article IV Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
invasion does not require the invaders to be armed..
IMO Obama is screwing up bad with this...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
oddly, the fourteenth has not been invoked yet:
Amendment XIV Section 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.
i beleive it has not been invoked because it specifically details the concept that Citizens have different rights than persons... persons being non-citizens... some people would like to ignore that concept entirely...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
being a sacntuary city means you ban the police from doing their job...
this lawsuit would in fact make everywhere a sacntury city or state...
Cities in the United States began designating themselves as sanctuary cities during the 1980s.[1] The policy was first initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles, to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The internal policy, "Special Order 40," states: "Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry)."[citation needed] Some of the 31 American cities are Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine. These cities have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.[2][3]
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[4]
Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers' reporting persons' immigration status to federal authorities.[5]
Section 287(g) makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to be trained in immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities.[6] This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[7] On June 16, 2007 the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (Republican-Colorado) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective.[8]
In 2007, Republican Congresspersons introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities.[9] Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Cal., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo, R-Colo introduced the bill. The legislation would make illegal immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities.[10]
On September 5, 2007 Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a House committee that "I certainly wouldn't tolerate interference" by sanctuary cities that would block his "Basic Pilot Program" that requires employers to validate the legal status of their workers. "We're exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference." [11] On May 5, 2009, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a bill into law that prohibited sanctuary city policies in the state of Georgia.[12]
On June 5, 2009 the Tennessee state House passed a bill banning the implementation of sanctuary city policies within the state of Tennessee.[13]
posted
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
This act states that if an immigrant has been unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days but less than 365 days he or she must remain outside the United States for three years unless the person obtains a pardon. If the person has been in the United States for 365 days or more, he or she must stay outside the United States for ten years unless he or she obtains a pardon. If the person returns to the United States without the pardon, the person cannot apply for a waiver for a period of ten years. This is the permanent bar.
posted
AZ learns the hard way again best thing they can do now is forget the whole thing ever happened. Use the money they would spend on a legal defence and do some good with it.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Beyond The Federal Government’s Lawsuit: How Others Are Challenging Arizona’s Immigration Law The Associated Press is reporting that Department of Justice officials have confirmed that the U.S. federal government has filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law, SB-1070, on the grounds that it “usurps federal authority.” “As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country,” explained President Obama last week. “A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.”
The federal government’s lawsuit will likely focus on “federal preemption,” or the notion that that the Constitution’s supremacy clause mandates that federal law preempts state law “in any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts or interferes with federal law.” However, while the federal preemption argument presents the most common case brought up against SB-1070, a diverse set of challenges have been raised in amicus briefs filed over the course of the past couple months that demonstrate the extent to which SB-1070 interferes with a wide range of government responsibilities:
SB-1070 Will Be Disruptive To Federal Enforcement Of Immigration Laws (American Immigration Lawyers Association – AILA) AILA argues that not only is SB-1070 federally preempted, but it’s also at “cross-purposes with the enforcement efforts of the federal government and its implementation will be disruptive.” SB-1070 explicitly states that “attrition through enforcement” is the official policy of Arizona. In other words, the law’s purpose is to make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they choose to self-deport. However, that’s not the approach followed by the federal government which tends to focus its limited resources on catching undocumented immigrants who are violent criminals. In that vain, the federal government has established several programs that “are intended to provide tools for use by the federal government and localities in enforcing immigration law.” Yet, unlike SB-1070, all of the actors are under the “direction and supervision of the Attorney General.”
SB-1070 Will Burden The Court System (American Bar Association – ABA) The ABA believes that SB-1070 will place excruciating burdens on defenders and prosecutors alike. According to Padilla v. Kentucky, all defense attorneys representing criminal defendants must be familiar with the immigration consequences of their case. Given that police will be required to investigate immigration status as part of any legal stop or detention, every minor or misdemeanor offense that is accompanied by “reasonable suspicion” that the defendant is unlawfully present in Arizona will essentially compel civil offense lawyers to become versed in immigration law as well. Prosecutors, meanwhile, will find that their ability to decide the criminal charges to be brought will be routinely delayed by Padilla’s instruction that prosecutors consider the range of immigration consequences.
SB-1070 Will Have A ‘Chilling Effect’ On Latinos’ Access To Social Benefits (National Council of La Raza – NCLR) NCLR argues that SB-1070 “will have a profound chilling effect on the constitutional right of certain Latino children to an education.” In fact, several reports have already come out showing that school enrollment is down. NCLR predicts that the “chilling effect” would “extend to other public benefits that are provided regardless of immigration status,” including Medicaid assistance, immunization programs, school breakfast and lunch programs, testing and treatment for communicable diseases, and some forms of disaster relief. NCLR also holds that SB-1070 will “foster discriminatory animus against and harassment of Latinos, compromise the physical well-being of many in the Latino community, and lead to an increase in racial profiling and other civil rights violations against Latinos.”
SB-1070 Will Frustrate The Enforcement Of Anti-Hate Crime Laws (Anti-Defamation League -ADL) Close cooperation between local law enforcement and minority communities is “essential” to the proper enforcement of hate crime laws. ADL’s biggest concern is that SB-1070 will “eviscerate” the local enforcement of federal and state anti-hate crime laws. According to ADL, this is because SB-1070 will create an “underclass of people who have no meaningful access to police services out of fear that their perceived immigration status…will subject them to higher law enforcement scrutiny.” ADL predicts that Latinos will be “deterred” from serving as witnesses, seeking protection, and reporting hate crimes — which leaves the entire community they live in “victimized, vulnerable, fearful, isolated, and unprotected by the law.”
SB-1070 Will Hurt U.S. International Relations (United Mexican States) One of the most highly criticized amicus briefs that was filed belonged to the Mexican government. However, while their complaints have largely been dismissed by America’s right wing, Mexico did raise a valid point: the U.S. is sending mixed messages to the rest of the world. Mexico understandably points out that “there needs to be one cohesive, consistent and controlling United States voice” on immigration. Mexico accuses Arizona of “impos[ing] its own independent and conflicting requirements” and “impinging upon the US-Mexico bilateral agenda and obstruct[ing] the bi-national collaboration to tackle immigration and border problems.” “Mexico cannot effectively cooperate or engage in meaningful bilateral relations with the U.S. when states are permitted to interfere with the sovereigns’ bilateral efforts,” states the amicus brief. Comments0SharePermalink
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.
it's becoming obviuos that there are some sort of secret agreements between the US and Mexcio concerning our looking the other way in this issue... since the Feds have sued and made this claim? they will have to prove this statement in court....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
AZ should set up a donor fund to fight this instead of just using Tax dollars, i bet thatif they only asked for 10 bucks thru a cell phona app, they could get over a million dollars...
even CNN polls suggest that over half the people polled support the AZ law....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
another section of the suit that is crapola:
It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach.
Section 264(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USC 1304(e)], a provision that has been “on the books” for decades, requires every alien 18 years of age and over to “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession” the “certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card” issued to him or her by DHS. The registration document is usually Form I-94 for nonimmigrants, or Form I-551 “greencard” for lawful permanent residents. That same provision also establishes rather severe penalties for not carrying the registration document:
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey man, we got NAFTA right? Remember Bill Clinton's deal? The great program that sent a ton of US manufacturers to right on the other side of the border into Mexico for cheap labor.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Hey man, we got NAFTA right? Remember Bill Clinton's deal? The great program that sent a ton of US manufacturers to right on the other side of the border into Mexico for cheap labor.
actually that was Bush the First's deal... Clinton just signed his legislation, which he did with a Democrat Congress...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Supreme Court may uphold part of Arizona immigration law
"It's still your decision," he told Verrilli. "It seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy snapped, "So you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?" "So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico? Is that what you are saying?" Scalia asked.
posted
problem? the court will prolly go 4-4 cuz the most recent appointee recused herself...
4-4 will mean it reverts back tot he last court decision which blocked the law.. if SCOTUS blocks this then the states will have to stop enforcing ALL Federal Law... hmmm.....what an instersting concept
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
At least 23 people killed in Mexican border city as victims hanged, decapitated
The bodies of 23 people were found hanging from a bridge or decapitated and dumped near city hall Friday in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, where drug cartels are fighting a bloody and escalating turf war. Authorities found nine of the victims, including four women, hanging from an overpass leading to a main highway, said a Tamaulipas state official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to provide information on the case. Hours later, police found 14 human heads inside coolers outside city hall along with a threatening note. The 14 bodies were found in black plastic bags inside a car abandoned near an international bridge, the official said
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Open borders, right?
At least 23 people killed in Mexican border city as victims hanged, decapitated
The bodies of 23 people were found hanging from a bridge or decapitated and dumped near city hall Friday in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, where drug cartels are fighting a bloody and escalating turf war. Authorities found nine of the victims, including four women, hanging from an overpass leading to a main highway, said a Tamaulipas state official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to provide information on the case. Hours later, police found 14 human heads inside coolers outside city hall along with a threatening note. The 14 bodies were found in black plastic bags inside a car abandoned near an international bridge, the official said
posted
maybe if we all chip in a few bucks for the moving van?
i don't know how many times i've had to remind cash here that NAFTA is a BUSH product, and always was.... clinton did go along with it, but that's why he got the100 million in th ebank after he left office
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: maybe if we all chip in a few bucks for the moving van?
i don't know how many times i've had to remind cash here that NAFTA is a BUSH product, and always was.... clinton did go along with it, but that's why he got the100 million in th ebank after he left office
The real troubling thing here(LOL). Is CCM forgot to include the 4 tortured and dismembered journalists that were found in a canal yesterday in Mexico. He's really slipping!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: maybe if we all chip in a few bucks for the moving van?
i don't know how many times i've had to remind cash here that NAFTA is a BUSH product, and always was.... clinton did go along with it, but that's why he got the100 million in th ebank after he left office
Yes Glass, you have to keep reminding me that what.....Clinton did not STOP NAFTA?
Establishment Formation December 22, 1995
After reading your comment pushing the blame on Bush and seeing Clinton just "going along with it" I decided to look up a speech on it and found this:
Bill Clinton was PASSIONATE about NAFTA. So the whole blame bush junior or senior talk can take a hike here.
NAFTA passed in both houses of Democratically controlled Congress in 1993.
HOWEVER!
NAFTA supporters included big name GOPers as Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich and Ron Portman, all of whom rose to leadership positions in the House or the Bush Administration. Democrat Nancy Pelsoi, who voted yes on NAFTA, ended up Speaker of the House.
BUT!
Bill Clinton:
"This landmark act will extend our economic prosperity at home while increasing the prospects for more openness in China".
--Clinton praising the approval of China into the WTO
The United States also joined the World Trade Organization under Bill Clinton in 1995. NAFTA has driven manufacturing jobs OUT of the US and into Mexico as well as lowering wages of employees.
I am sick of the "buy American" label when Ford and GM are making a ton of cars in Mexico. Also everyone else is there like BMW, Nissan, and Mercedes, but they dont go around with massive labor unions saying buy German or buy Japanese back home while making them overseas.
In 2012 you can buy American buy buying a BMW made in South Carolina. Yeah yeah I know the money goes to wherever BMW is headquartered or the same with the Japanese companies but foreign car companies are feeding American families.
I drive a Ford truck right now and will probably buy another Ford truck as long as its not MADE IN MEXICO!!!!!!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
posted
So the whole blame bush junior or senior talk can take a hike here.
open your eyes cash.. you are walking around with them closed.
i did not say clinton was not for it.
i said, and this is the TRUTH -NAFTA? it's is a Bush family plan, and Clinton got paid huge for making it so.
i have owned about 25 Fords and half of them have bene trucks. some of them i built to race in the dirt against (IN NC and VA) a feild that was all chevies and beat their azzes. i really am a redneck- i have two -one new right now. and i have a motorhome with anallison-cummings power plant.
as to the world trade stuff? Bush brought China in with most favored nation status just days after tienannman sqaure. the WTO is just an extension of most favored nation crap.. nothing new there at all. Bush Sr was the first us envoy to china under President Ford.. this stuff is all the same folks cash. You are quoting only half th estory.
when are you going to realise YOU are being COMPLETELY played by both sides.
they set up straw men for YOU and others like you to knock down over and over again when they are BOTH screwing you over?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
why do you think Bush Sr took out manuel Noriega and got some troops killed to INVADE another country to capture a BANKING CRIMINAL? I could be living in Panama instead of MS right now if i wanted too. I had to take a break
because Noriega took a bunch of cash from Bush's (secret)accounts when he natialnaised the banks down there.
watch the movie BLOW. they talk about the drug dealers that got burned too. TOO? LOL.. sheesh. they are all the same cash. wake up and get your eyes cleared.
why do you think the Feds DON"T want tight borders? LOL.... there's a whole slew of these folk who have so much money stuck outside the country they had no choice but to invest in th eother countries. reeread the article you posted about buying gold versus investing in businesses, and then realise that GOLD is way better than cash is... at least gold "floats" cash always sinks.
China? they don't even have a drug problem. Kow why? Cuz Mao murderd at least 20 million dopers when he took over. maybe even 100 million.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
