As expected, The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit yesterday against Arizona’s darconian SB-1070, weeks before the law is scheduled to go into effect.
SB 1070 “is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” legal papers filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix contend. The lawsuit says the legislation conflicts with the federal government’s need to balance the competing interests of enforcing federal immigration law with the country’s diplomatic relations with other nations, including Mexico.
The law “attempts to second-guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the condition of an alien’s entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who heads the civil division of the Department of Justice.
While Governor Jan Brewer, Senator Russell Pearce and others, using the law for their own political gain, predict it will be upheld, others, far more knowledgeable and educated than the governor have a different opinion.
“There’s a very realistic chance that this marks the end of SB 1070,” said Gabriel “Jack” Chin, of the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law. “It’s one thing for the ACLU and MALDEF to say that SB 1070 interferes with federal immigration authority, but it’s not their direct concern. It’s much more credible, much more powerful to have the United States come in and make the argument.”
Chin predicts a judge will order an injunction and goes further to say the law will never go into effect.
“In order for Arizona to win, Arizona has to persuade a district judge that either Arizona or federal courts are in a better position to determine foreign policy concerns than the secretary of state and the federal government,” said Chin, who has been reading statutes for 25 years. “And that’s a tall order.”
However, Senator Russell Pearce, friend to the National Socialist Movement and other domestic terrorist groups, has been on Fox News this morning spewing the radical misinformation of the radical right wing extremists who he associates with. It is interesting to note this is Pearce’s 5 time trying to get a law such as this passed, the other 4 times not making it out of committee. The unsolved and mysterious murder of Rancher Robert Krantz, inflamed public opinion which helped push this over the top.
The lawsuit has only one purpose, said Sen. Russell Pearce, the Mesa Republican who crafted the law and pushed it through the Legislature. “This is about the Obamas’ policy of nonenforcement,” he said. “This interferes with their plan for amnesty.”
The administration has no interest in dealing with illegal immigration itself and now wants to block Arizona from doing what the federal government refuses to do, Pearce said.
“They are complicit,” Pearce said of the administration.
“They are aiding and abetting the enemy,” Pearce said and are violating their oath of office. “They ought to be impeached.”
Actually, it is Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer who should be “impeached” for bringing this unconstitutional and racist law down upon the citizens of their state.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor and mouthpiece for the legal arm of the hate group FAIR, 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.
Sounds as if Korbach is worried that with the DOJ jumping into the mix, another of his efforts to rid the country of Mexicans will be shot down in flames. Let’s hope we;re right again.
HOW OTHERS ARE CHALLENGING ARIZONA’S IMMIGRATION LAW
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.
Related posts:
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects Gov. Brewer’s Challenge, Upholds Injunction of SB 1070
- Appeal filed in Arizona Supreme Court challenging Minuteman Shawna Fordes death sentence
- Economic Boycott of Arizona to continue despite defeat of Anti Mexican legislation pushed by Russell Pearce
- Righthaven Copyright Troll Lawsuit Dismissed as Sham
- Another frivolous complaint filed by Laine Lawless – Judge John S. Leonardo targeted
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.