Has our AG even read the law yet?

[sirs]

recalling how, despite having not read the actual 20page law (if even 20pages), our AG seemed to have no problem criticising a law he hadn't read, merely what he had "heard"
------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Governor Blasts Eric Holder

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer scolded Atty. Gen. Eric Holder for holding open the prospect of a lawsuit when Arizona is already facing five legal challenges over the state's new immigration law.

"I would much prefer for them not to file suit, given the fact that they could take the money and help me build a fence on my border," Brewer said in an interview with three HUMAN EVENTS editors by phone from Phoenix.

Brewer also said she has decided to bypass her state's top law enforcement official and hire private counsel to defend new immigration legislation in court because her attorney general opposes the measure.

Brewer has been in the national spotlight since her state enacted legislation authorizing law enforcement officials to question people they detain as to whether they are legal U.S. residents.

Brewer mentioned opposition to what is increasingly called "the Arizona laws" from fellow governors on border states, notably Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. Brewer said she knew Schwarzenegger didn't know what was in the bill because "he figured what he read in the paper was exactly what the bill said."
 
Brewer's announcement of bypassing Arizona Atty. Gen.Terry Goddard in favor of private counsel came days after Goddard (who is the leading Democratic contender for governor this year) told a group in New York he opposed the immigration measure that is headed for court challenges.

"He actually had spoken out publicly that he opposed the bill and stated that he thought it was unconstitutional," said Brewer. "Therefore, the legislature gave me specific instructions in the legislation to go outside and hire my own counsel, which you know, obviously makes good sense. One would like to think that their lawyer was on their side."

Brewer said she sent a letter to Holder on June 4 that answered questions from the Justice Department on the immigration measure. The letter, obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, urged the DoJ not to file charges against Arizona because there are already "five federal court lawsuits pending that challenge" the new law. "Every conceivable constitutional and any other legal challenge that can be raised about SB1070 will be thoroughly briefed, argued and then adjudicated by a United States court," the letter continued, while also defending the tough illegal immigration statutes as "constitutionally permissible."

"Everything constitutional that in fact they could ever talk about is in those other suits," she told HUMAN EVENTS. "I would much prefer for them [DoJ] not to file suit, given the fact that they could take the money and help me build a fence on my border."

Overall, the Governor's legal team is asking the courts to dismiss the lawsuits.

"I hope [Holder's] read [the law] by now," Brewer said, "so that he knows what it exactly says."

Brewer, who met with President Obama recently, said he tried to keep some distance from the immigration law.

"When I spoke with the President, he indicated that he wasn't going to make much comment about the law..He was going to leave it up to the Department of Justice to determine whether they were going to file suit or not. It's an interesting way of stating, 'You know, I don't want to get my fingers too deep in that because I know the public supports it.'

Asked what fellow governors facing similar problems with their borders and illegal immigrants are saying, Brewer mentioned that she has "certainly spoken with [Texas Republican] Gov. [Rick] Perry and [New Mexico Democratic] Gov. Richardson and Gov. Schwarzenegger with regard to it. They, of course aren't facing the problem that Arizona is because we now have been left as the gateway for all illegal immigration, drug cartels and gangs coming into the Americas."

Brewer particularly singled out Schwarzenegger, recalling that "Arnold of course has stated publicly that he didn't support it. He is much different than I am with regard to that. You know, we are a nation of laws and it's illegal and that didn't change his mind. He figured that what he read in the paper was exactly what the bill said and we kind of left it at that."


In Hermione's best accent...."What an idiot"

[kimba1]

tell me if i`m wrong.
so far this law has been a success. remember the response has been a much needed support for the border and greater scrutiny of the existing laws implemented on this matter.

the ironic thing is this law doesn`t  even have to pass .

do you think the state played the feds to it`s advantage?

[sirs]

You're only wrong in thinking it doesn't need to pass.  The reason so much more scrutiny and enforcement is being applied is because of the pending passage of the law.  Remove its pending nature, and everything is back to the status quo.

Also note how you have all these threats of litigation & pending lawsuits, and how unconstitutional its supposed to be, minus any legal beagle coming out and demonstrating, "I've read the law and this is how the AZ law is unconstitutional.  It does X, while not doing Y.  And that's what makes it unconstitutional"

This law is likely going to run the same course as Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Meaning, for years, pro-illegal immigration advocates have pushed the Fed to indict Arpaio for supposed countless breaking of law and the civil rights of criminals and illegal immigrants.  And the Fed, especially with Obama and Holder at the head, have been investigating, and investigating, and investigating, and investigating.  And you'll note, no indictments, no warrants for his arrest, no removing him as Sheriff.  Lots of talk, but when it comes down to it, he's merely enforcing existing law.

And that's all AZ is going to be doing with this bill/law

[Plane]

Can a State sue to force the Federal government to fulfill its duty?

Could a state sue for the border patroll to be increased or a fence built , elese the monetary equivelent they could use for the purpose themselves?

If the Feds sue the satte they will have the Federal authoritys and experts testifying that patrolling than fenseing the border is the Federal responsibility , this testimony would be golden for useing when the state sues the fed to make them fulfill this responsibility.

[sirs]

It would be a pretty bold move in general, by the states.  However, it's not necessary, when on 2 occasions, both in 1986, then reinforced with further legislation in 1996, States have been given quite the latitude in enforcing existing Federal immigration law.  In effect, they've become partner's, since apparently enforcing our borders and Federal immigration law was just too darn onerous to be done by the Fed alone

The problem is the "pockets".  The Fed can sue the states using our apparently bottomless supply of tax dollars.  States don't have that luxury to counter sue

[sirs]

Amid crises, Obama declares war -- on Arizona
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
June 22, 2010    

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that's getting uglier by the day.

First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."

But they didn't.

"There certainly seems to be an underlying disrespect for the state of Arizona," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Kobach points out that during the Bush years, several states openly flouted federal immigration law on issues like sanctuary cities and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Respecting the doctrines of comity and federalism, the Bush administration didn't sue. Now, when Arizona passes a measure that is fully consistent with federal law, the Obama administration, says Kobach, "goes sprinting to the courthouse door."

Then there is the matter of the White House's assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona's border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.

June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren't. "What a disappointment," Brewer told van Susteren. "You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing."

And now, there's the Kyl controversy. On June 18, Kyl told a town meeting in North Phoenix that Obama personally told him the administration will not secure the U.S.-Mexico border because doing so would make it politically difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform. "I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us," Kyl said. "Here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."

"In other words," Kyl continued, "they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."

After Kyl's statement went viral on the Internet, the White House issued a sharp denial. "The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."

Kyl is not backing down. "What I said occurred, did occur," he told an Arizona radio station. "Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn't what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that's their position."

Even if it didn't have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that's precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama's campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.


Is THIS the battle Obama really wants to spend his prescious little political capital on?

[sirs]

Feds act on immigration ? by suing Arizona
Posted: June 24, 2010

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder questioned the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law ? before admitting he hadn't read it. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just confirmed that the feds plan to sue to stop the law. And Mexico, whose president said Arizona's law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity," recently filed a brief in U.S. federal court to side with the law's opponents.

Is Arizona's law, scheduled to go into effect next month, an unconstitutional assault on all things moral and decent? How else to describe the over-the-top reaction to ? and the often completely false description of ? the law by people who apparently neither read nor understood it?

A New York Times sports writer, for example, said, "The law makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and directs the police to question people about their immigration status and demand to see their documents if there is reason to suspect they are illegal." Federal law already requires that noncitizens carry documents to prove that they are in the country legally. Arizona makes failure to do so a state crime.

What does the Arizona law direct the police to do?

The law says: "For any lawful stop, detention or arrest ... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien ... a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine the immigration status of the person." This means that if you
a) are lawfully stopped
and b) a cop reasonably believes you may be here illegally,
then c) the officer will check into your status. That's a lot of hoops to jump through.

What is a "lawful stop"?

Lawmakers added an explanatory note to the Arizona law. It says, "A lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law." This is important, and it's ignored or mischaracterized by some of the law's critics. The "lawful stop" ? which may trigger a further inquiry about a person's status ? must be for reasons other than a suspicion that one is here illegally.

What constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien?

The Supreme Court has defined "reasonable suspicion" as "common-sense" factors that an officer must be able to explain. It cannot be a mere hunch. A bad cop can abuse any law. And yes, there are gray areas in this one. But officers operate under this kind of imprecision every day.

Can a person be stopped because he or she "looks" Mexican? Again, the stop must be for a reason other than a suspicion of illegal entry. But after a lawful stop, can "looking Mexican" trigger the suspicion of illegality? The law says: "A law enforcement official ... may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Ethnicity or race can be a factor if coupled with, for example, the commission of a traffic offense while having no driver's license or other government-issued ID and not being able to speak English.

What proof must be shown?

The law says proof of legal residence can be an Arizona driver's license, an Arizona-issued ID, a tribal ID or a federal, state or local government-issued ID.

U.S. Attorney General Holder says the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." To repeat, racial profiling ? using race or ethnicity as the sole criterion ? is illegal under U.S. and Arizona law.

73% of Americans approve of "requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status."
67% approve of "allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify legal status."
62% believe in "allowing police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally" ? which goes even further than does the Arizona law.

Yes, illegal aliens are humans. They also broke the law and cut in front of others who are trying to come here legally. Most illegal aliens from south-of-the-border countries are "unskilled." They compete against unskilled Americans ? often while taking advantage of taxpayer-provided education, health care and other benefits.

Many Americans are open to increasing legal immigration and to a temporary worker program ? but the debate is pointless without secure borders. The Arizona-Mexico border remains porous and dangerous. And nearly half of illegal aliens enter legally but overstay ? with little or nothing done to keep track of them.

How does Mexico treat illegals in its country from Central American countries? The president of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission once said, "One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North (the United States) respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South."

Where's Guatemala's lawsuit against Mexico?