Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Federal government sues to throw out Arizona’s immigration law

July 7, 2010

Advertisement

— The Obama administration sued Arizona on Tuesday to throw out the state’s toughest-in-the-nation immigration law and keep other states from copying it.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government’s “pre-eminent authority” under the Constitution to regulate immigration.

The move sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states’ rights at a time when politicians in some other states have indicated they want to follow Arizona’s lead.

The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations.

Supporters of the law said the lawsuit was unnecessary and blamed the federal government for neglecting problems at the border for years. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the complaint “a terribly bad decision” and defended the law as “reasonable and constitutional.”

Arizona passed the measure after years of frustration with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigration, and it’s home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.

“The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,” the suit says.

The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Constitution’s assertion that federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says that comprehensive federal laws already on the books cover illegal immigration — and that those statutes take precedent.

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit says. “This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests.”

The lawsuit also says that the Arizona measure will impose a huge burden on U.S. agencies in charge of enforcing immigration laws, “diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority.”

The next step is for the case to be assigned a judge, who will decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the law from taking effect.

Brewer predicted that the law would survive the federal challenge as well as pending suits previously filed by private groups and individuals.

“As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice,” Brewer said. “Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he’s not surprised by the Justice Department’s challenge and called it “unnecessary.”

He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.

“The issue was already teed up in the courts. There’s no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn’t add anything by bringing their own lawsuit,” Kobach said in an interview.

Kobach lives outside Kansas City, Kan., and is running for Kansas secretary of state.

Comments

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

All Arizona has done is pass a law and seek to enforce it because the federal government has been AWOL in performing its own statutory and constitutional duties. On the other hand, how about the dozen or more U.S. cities that have named themselves "sanctuary cities" for the direct purpose of defying federal immigration and deportation laws? Is Holder going to sue them? The blatant hypocrisy of Obama and his lapdog Holder is disgusting.

0

kubacker 3 years, 9 months ago

Obama and Holder know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the case when it gets to the Supreme Court.

0

jmadison 3 years, 9 months ago

Why hasn't the Obama administration sued Rhode Island for implementing enforcement similar to the Arizona law? http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/

Eric Holder and the DOJ needs to be consistent in their challenge of the treatment of illegal aliens.

0

Ray Parker 3 years, 9 months ago

State are fighting desperately for their job markets and economies, being severely damaged by illegal immigration, which also dramatically increases crime and drug smuggling in states like Arizona, and they have to fight a pro-alien Marxist regime too?

0

sunny 3 years, 9 months ago

This administration has got to go!

0

jmadison 3 years, 9 months ago

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution: 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.

Does 400,000 illegal aliens qualify as an invasion? Our political class of both parties have been woefully neglectful in enforcing the Constitution.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.