Obama sues Arizona

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Just when you think the Obama administration disregard for the rule of law couldn't get any worse it sets the bar that much lower.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

Gosh, in the same way that states pursuing bank robbers usurps the federal laws against bank robbery?

Obama & Co. also seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of state laws against activities that are illegal at the federal level. Are they going to argue that all of them are invalid?

Obama and holder are giving the Constitution the middle finger and violating the rights of states that are clearly defined in the Constitution as well as ignoring the duties and limitations of the federal government contained in that document.

Do Obama and Holder really think they can pull off something so egregiously anti-American?

I'd love to see counter-suits from states that recognize the federalism defined by the Constitution and which object to the callous disregard for the rule of law being perpetrated by the Obama administration.

It will be amusing to see how many people who claimed that Bush was "shredding the Constitution" stand up and object to a real raping of the rule of law.

So is this the lowest Obama and Holder can go or will we see worse by November?

ETA: court decisions and DOJ analysis. If you read carefully there's an out for Obama to play: declare that immigration laws are not being enforced at the federal level so states cannot enforce them either. It's a move that would satisfy the extremists on his side but pretty much cause a political tsunami against Democrats who continued to support Obama.

Comments

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I have already very carefully documented how AZ Bill 2162 mirrors federal law.

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/521199.html

The OP made some excellents points back then.

Now to the specific charges against this law by the Federal Government

Profiling:

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution

This text from the AZ law shows a greater respect than 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304 which does not say that a Federal Law enforcement officer may not consider race,color, or nation of origin before demanding their papers that they must keep on them at all times, per the law.

Supremacy Clause would have to show me how the AZ law contracts the Federal law. I can not find t hat contractition. In fact, I believe they are pretty much the same law. With the caveat of the Powers to Arrest. However, this power has not always been solely in the hands of Officers who report to the Attorney General. In 1996, the U.S. trained local officers to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program

I believe this is a classic case of demagoguery over leadership.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So answer this question-if a group of blond illegal Latinas is talking next to a group of long-term citizens of the United States whose ancestors have resided here since before the Gadsen Purchase who are swarthy and dark-haired, who is more likely to be asked to show papers?

[kenderkin.livejournal.com]

If the police are actually doing their job, which IMO most of them actually do, then they would question both groups.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which IMHO will happen the day Hell freezes over. Blond people won't be nearly the targets dark-haired people will be.

[kenderkin.livejournal.com]

I see your side, but I just have more faith in people than that. :)
I hope I'm right and you're wrong. But I do fear about your being right.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And I lost faith in Man a long time ago (and this is me at 20. If I live to be an old fart like my grandfather did at 90....O.o). So.....

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

And I lost faith in Man a long time ago

Reading this comment makes me so sad and makes me want to give you a hug. I know people are hard to deal with sometimes, but don't lose hope in humanity. There are good people out there. :)

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

On this we can agree.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of good people out there but very, very few of them work in government or law enforcement.

[dierdrae.livejournal.com]

Experience, unfortunately, tends to destroy that much faith.

My mom [petite white woman] was mugged a few years ago and didn't see the mugger's face. The police officer [white male] taking down her report kept insisting that she write down either Hispanic or Black for the mugger's race. She refused, because she didn't remember the mugger's face, and knew he could've just as easily been white. The police officer continued trying to convince her the mugger was a PoC. Result? She continued refusing to lie, and the police officer did not file her report. According to the city we live in, it never happened.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Look up Sherrif Joe Arapio in Arizona...

then tell me if you have that same faith...

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And that doesn't just happen in a vacuum either.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I might have some faith, but then I actually read up on the daily abuses by policemen. Seriously, every new power police get they abuse. How can you argue otherwise unless you are blind to what is going on? I mean do you read news papers? watch the news? even if you never get beyond corporate media it is all over.

[kenderkin.livejournal.com]

Yes....I actually do read up on what's going on. I don't just listen to the main stream media spout their negative comments and their only reporting the negative news.
You do realize that there are a lot of really GOOD things that happen in this world. More so than the negative. But since that doesn't bring the ratings, the news doesn't cover it.

Hate to break it to you....but for every one bad cop, there are 100 doing their job to the best of their ability. Saving our lives. Protecting our streets.

Maybe YOU need to actually figure out what's going on in the world around you. There's much more good than bad if you just look.

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

I agree with you! :D This comment wins the gold star for the day. (http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/mini852/?action=view&current=1040078pjtfxwjzwi.gif)

The existence of good does not negate the existence of evil, and vice versa.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

And even if your estimate of 1 in a hundred is right (and I suspect that it is) it's still far too many in and of itself, much less entrusting the civil liberties and rights of an entire state to a vague new law that reads like its designed to encourage racial profiling.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

That's not much comfort to those who have had their dog shot by abusive policemen. Or their grandmother tasered. Or been beaten up, and imprisoned for their trouble. Or killed for interfering with police run drug dealing syndicates

Police should be given the absolute minimum of power as they have shown they can't be trusted with it. We don't live in a happy shiny world. We cannot presume that police will not abuse powers, because it is factually evident that they do.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The thing is, can you really find probable cause in someone not being able to procure a driver's license upon request? (for some other offense other than driving without a license?) I've left the house multiple times after leaving my wallet in my old pants. I've just been fortunate not to have been pulled over when that's happened, but if I had been, there's no more evidence to suggest I'm guilty of anything more than simply driving without a license, which I should be charged with.

Barring anything which can be assumed to be probable cause of being in the country illegally, other factors will filter into the estimation, and they won't be pretty. They're not going to investigate every person without ID. The good cops will avoid using the law rather than run the risk, neutering any of its intended effect, and the bad cops will abuse it, and cost the state in legal fees. This is pretty much a nightmare waiting to happen, if it doesn't get struck down first. It's an ill-conceived attempt to solve a problem.

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

Just because you have a differing opinion then someone doesn't mean you should be condescending and rude.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Asserting that police abuse their powers is not an opinion. It is a matter of record.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Why is this question relevant to verytwistedmind's comment?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The one generating the reason for an investigation.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Those that can't speak English.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Indeed, the Supreme Court and DOJ analysis (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/immstopo1a.htm) confirm that local law enforcement officers can make immigration arrests if their state laws allow for that.

Subject to such restrictive state law provisions, it is recognized that state and local police may stop, detain, and arrest persons when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that such persons have violated, or are violating, the federal immigration laws. Gonzales, 722 F.2d at 474; Barajas, 81 Cal. App.3d at 999; 67 Ops. Cal. Att'y Gen. 331, Op. No. 83-902.

We also note that the INA itself recognizes the authority of state officers to make arrests for criminal violations of federal immigration law. For example, 8 U.S.C. � 1324(c), governing the authority to arrest persons for bringing into the United States or harboring illegal aliens, provides as follows:

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws. [emphasis in cited article]

Moreover, in Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected the claim that this state arrest authority does not extend to other criminal provisions of the INA, such as 8 U.S.C. �� 1325 and 1326. See 722 F.2d at 475. The California Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in Barajas. See 81 Cal. App.3d at 1006.

Obama is arguing against Federal and SC precedence and DOJ analysis.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Your link also distinguishes between civil and criminal violations. I'm still not entirely clear on the distinction, but I did find this:

Federal Law Regarding State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws

Legislative provisions relating to civil immigration law enforcement by state and local police were included in two 1996 laws, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).

AEDPA authorized state and local police to arrest and detain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States after being deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States.” These persons would be deportable based on their criminal behavior, and their re-entry into the U.S. is itself an immigration crime.

IIRIRA authorized state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws in two very specific situations. IIRIRA amended an earlier version of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that outlined state and local police roles in addressing a “mass influx of aliens.” The law now authorizes state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws when all of the following conditions are met: there is a “mass influx” of foreign nationals; the situation requires an immediate response from the federal government; and federal officials obtain the consent of the state or local supervising department.

IIRIRA also established a mechanism whereby the attorney general could delegate immigration law enforcement authorities to state and local police, provided the officers have undergone adequate training and have entered into a formal agreement with the Department of Justice. A Memorandum of Agreement is required between the state or locality and the Justice Department before the former can exercise any new immigration law enforcement powers. The MOA process (specified in section 287(g) of the INA) includes safeguards designed to ensure the integrity of local enforcement of federal civil laws and specifies that such arrangements are possible only when they do not supersede state or local laws that prohibit such arrangements. Each agreement is also very specific about what laws police can and cannot enforce. (http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/Backgrounder-StateLocalEnforcement.pdf)