In an absolutely outrageous move which further substantiates the Obama Administration’s anti-American and divisive philosophy, the State Department submitted a report to the UN that was critical of Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070.
Isn’t the President supposed to support and positively represent this country?
If he was so incensed with Arizona’s law, why didn't the federal government’s lawsuit against the state mention racism or abridgment of rights?
Even more reprehensible, he had the audacity to allow such a specious report to be submitted to an organization that is saturated with vile human rights abuses.
Interestingly, he also had the suit adjudicated in a District Court in Arizona where the judge was a known liberal appointed by Bill Clinton. This approach is constitutionally not legal and the ruling should be nullified.
Why? The US Constitution enumerates specifically that in cases where the Federal government sues a state, only the Supreme Court can hear and rule on such matters.
This is all part of Obama’s radical agenda to denigrate and destroy America and render it mediocre at best.
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
Brewer condemns State Department for mentioning Arizona law in human rights report to UN
August 27, 2010 Associated Press
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
There is an insidious and pernicious invasion in California and more specifically in the L.A. area by vicious members of several Mexican drug cartels. Their numbers and the amount and degree of violence are increasing as are their influences on local governments.
This is of monumental significance and yet few people are aware of this crisis. Why?
Because the very liberal Los Angeles Times refuses to report on it for political and ideological reasons.
This is inexcusable and a dereliction of their professional responsibility yet the Times has no shortage of vitriol and racist charges against Arizona and those who are against illegal immigration and for secure borders.
Media Miss Cartels' War In U.S.
Investor’s Business Daily 08/16/2010
Media: As Mexico's drug war and Arizona's bid to defend itself take center stage, the growth of cartels in Los Angeles is another leg of the story. But to know about it you need to read Spanish.
Los Angeles and its suburbs are in grave danger of becoming outposts for Mexican drug- and immigrant-smuggling cartels, according to local law enforcement officials.
"We have detected the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas," Alvin Jackson, head of the Narcotics Division of the L.A. Police Department, said in a recent interview. "They are operating on a middle and street level."
In Mexico, the Gulf and Zeta gangs are among the most violent, known for beheading opponents, setting off car bombs and shooting up border cities from Tijuana to Matamoros. In L.A., they've set up "distribution centers" not just in the slums, but also the San Fernando Valley and on the well-heeled Westside near Santa Monica.
Five other Mexican cartels — Sinaloa, Beltran-Levya, La Familia, Arellano Felix and Carillo Fuentes — also operate in L.A. They're busy recruiting gangs to carry on the same mayhem they're engaged in south of the border, Jackson said.
Steven Martinez, who heads the FBI in Los Angeles, agreed with Jackson's observations.
You'd think this would be news that merits front-page coverage in, say, the city's newspaper of record, the Los Angeles Times. But it's not. Jackson's and Martinez's assessments were reported in La Opinion, a Spanish-language daily that has no English translation.
It's not that the Times doesn't cover the cartel war in detail from Mexico. But when it comes to what's going on in Joe Friday's precincts, something that might have some relevance to its readers, the paper is derelict.
Perhaps it has something to do with the Times' near-monopoly on news in a one-newspaper town. Or maybe it's the paper's historically cozy relationship with the city's political machine, which panders to the Latino vote.
As illegal immigrants inundate the city and cartels come in behind them, the City Council declares L.A. a sanctuary city and wastes time boycotting Arizona for trying to beat back the same problems.
This is going to create serious problems down the road. L.A. District Attorney Steven Cooley told the Washington (not the L.A.) Times that gangs and drug traffickers may create gang- and cartel-controlled city governments.
It's already evident, he said, along the 710 Freeway towards the Port of Long Beach — a corridor that encompasses illegal-immigrant-majority towns such as Bell, the city whose officials were caught feathering their nests with million-dollar salary packages. The 710, by the way, has seen actual cartel shootings.
"If I was a drug dealer, and I didn't want to be interfered with, I'd move to a city where I could exploit dysfunctional city governments, corrupt the police or be left alone in a neighborhood where people are not as active in monitoring their communities," Cooley said.
Already in Cudahy, just south of Bell, Cooley says the FBI is investigating cartel-linked corruption as part of 30 ongoing corruption probes. No wonder even Mexico's president is complaining about U.S. official corruption going uninvestigated.
Meanwhile, even Hollywood is more aware of the cartel problem in Los Angeles. Locally produced TV shows such as "NCIS: Los Angeles" are incorporating cartel infiltration in city government into their L.A.-based story lines.
But at the Times, protecting the political establishment and its priorities means the growing power of the cartels will go unreported. It's a sad state of affairs when Angelenos have to rely on the ethnic press or newspapers based 3,000 miles away.
It's also ironic. Over the weekend, the Times reported that Mexican newspapers are not reporting drug-war news out of well-founded fear of retribution from cartels.
The Times seems to be practicing the same kind of self-censorship on its turf — not out of fear of gangs so much as a reluctance to cross a political establishment that is invested in unchecked illegal immigration.
Arizona is at the vanguard of states addressing their untenable illegal immigrant problem with its enactment of legislation, SB 1070. It appears that at least 20 states are considering such legislation with many using Arizona’s law as a paradigm. Among these other states that are strongly pursuing this course of action is Florida which hopes to construct a legally bullet proof version.
A majority of Americans strongly support these measures and vehemently oppose the Obama Administration’s position of abdication of its responsibility to protect the borders and secure America.
Florida AG McCollum, Lawmakers Unveil Immigration Bill Modeled After Arizona's
FOXNews.com 8/11/2010
Florida's attorney general and a group of state lawmakers moved Wednesday to push the Sunshine State into the forefront of the national illegal immigration debate with a bill modeled after Arizona's controversial law -- only, they claim, with a better shot of withstanding a court challenge.
Florida's attorney general and a group of state lawmakers moved Wednesday to push the Sunshine State into the forefront of the national illegal immigration debate with a bill modeled after Arizona's controversial law -- only, they claim, with a better shot of withstanding a court challenge.
State Attorney General Bill McCollum, following the lead of Virginia's top prosecutor, also issued an opinion saying state law enforcement already have the right to ask about immigration status in the course of their duties.
"This legislation will provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the ongoing problems created by illegal immigration," McCollum, a Republican, said in a written statement. "Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens."
McCollum helped write the legislation, though Florida lawmakers will be responsible for pushing it in the legislature.
The move comes after a U.S. District Court judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's law. The battle between Arizona and the U.S. government, as well as civil rights groups, could make its way to the Supreme Court -- but while that fight plays out, several states are putting similar legislation on the table.
The Florida proposal would, like Arizona's, require law enforcement officers to check the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant in the course of a "lawful stop."
It would require state businesses to use a national registry to ensure new employees are legal and would increase penalties for illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. The bill would also require non-citizen immigrants to carry immigration documentation or face a misdemeanor charge that could carry up to 20 days in jail.
Though McCollum's office said in a statement that the legislation was adjusted to "strengthen it" against a possible court challenge, the proposal would go beyond Arizona's by letting judges consider a defendant's illegal immigrant status during bond proceedings.
State Rep. William Snyder wrote the bill with McCollum.
The unveiling comes after Virginia State Attorney Ken Cuccinelli last week issued a ruling saying police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops. The move prompted an objection from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, which urged state police to ignore the opinion.
McCollum did something similar Wednesday, releasing an informal opinion to a state lawmaker saying "it appears that state and local law enforcement have the authority to inquire into the immigration status" of anyone detained under state law providing the questioning doesn't "prolong" the detention.
As Cuccinelli said, McCollum clarified that under current law, officers are not required to ask about immigration status.
Arizona is at the vanguard of the immigration debate and legislation. The bill which is generating such widespread attention, SB1070, is now being used as a template by around 20 other states that are considering addressing this alien invasion through legal means. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is aggressively pursuing a lawsuit against Arizona which runs counter to the sentiment of a significant majority of Americans - around 70%.
Why is Obama choosing such an action against a state whose legislation is nearly identical to the federal law and seeking to uphold it? This is a political gambit without a clear Constitutional basis. His actions are cynical, divisive, hateful and the arguments that he and his Administration have used are specious. This is all for political gain and for ideological goals.
The prime author of Arizona’s immigration legislation, State Senator Russell Pearce, discusses SB 1070, the severity of the illegal alien problem in the state including issues of crime and costs. Most people are not aware of the true severity of the problem which needs to be expeditiously, effectively and thoroughly addressed.
Arizona Immigration Law Author: Failure to Enforce Law Impeachable Offense
Jim Meyers 8/5/2010
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of Arizona’s tough immigration law, tells Newsmax that the recent court ruling on the law was a “huge win” for Americans fighting to stem the flow of illegal aliens in this country.
Pearce, a Republican who represents parts of suburban Phoenix, also says the law “scares” the Obama administration because it will lead to the enforcement of immigration laws — and agrees that Obama’s failure to enforce those laws is an “impeachable” offense.
A highly decorated former law officer, Pearce crafted and co-sponsored Arizona SB1070, the immigration bill that was passed in April. Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, but Pearce remains cheered by the results.
“It’s been a long battle,” he says. “I prepared for the fistfight. I knew it was coming, getting sued by the open border crowd, the left-wing folks who fight you on any effort to enforce the law. So I knew what was coming.
“But we won. It’s a huge win. We won everything we really needed to win.
“The main thrust of 1070 was [against] sanctuary policies” that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws in certain jurisdictions. “They’re actually illegal under federal law. But [federal officials] don’t sue them, they sue Arizona because we decide to enforce the law.
“The other parts that she blocked temporarily were important tools, but what did go into effect, people need to understand, is that sanctuary policies in the state of Arizona are now illegal. She didn’t block that piece. So law enforcement may enforce the federal law to the fullest extent of the law.
“And if they don’t, we the people will sue government — that’s also in the bill. If they block or interfere or limit the enforcement of these laws in any manner, we will sue.
“The other piece that stayed in there is on day laborer issues. It’s a felony to hire them. We’re going to stop the hiring of illegal aliens that take a job from Americans. If you pick up an illegal alien day laborer, you’re going to go to jail. Your car is going to be impounded for 30 days, mandatory. So some significant pieces are still in effect and are huge in this bill.
“This law has teeth. That’s what scares people. That scares the Obama administration, which has a non-enforcement policy.”
Pearce was asked how he reacted to Sarah Palin’s comment that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer “has the cojones that our president doesn’t have.”
“I reacted very well to that comment,” he tells Newsmax. “I appreciate the governor’s vigilance in defense of the bill.
“During the debate over 1070, a good friend of mine was murdered — right after [Janet] Napolitano, your Homeland Security director, said the border is more secure than ever. Simply not true.
“Fifteen Phoenix police officers, just to pick on Phoenix, were murdered or maimed at the hands of illegal aliens. Enough is enough. We spend $2.7 billion a year in Arizona to educate, medicate, and incarcerate. It’s the citizens that pay the price for this illegal alien invasion that can no longer be ignored.”
Pearce cited one Arizona family that has been terrorized by illegal aliens who come across the border, suffering “18 burglaries, three home invasions, multiple vehicles stolen. At night they hear a noise outside and they pray for daylight. They have their doors boarded, their windows boarded. And we have a federal government that stands by and thinks that’s O.K., that’s just collateral damage as they move forward with their agenda of amnesty. Enough is enough.”
Pearce says he is encouraged by other states that are following in Arizona’s footsteps and seeking to pass immigration legislation.
“Over 20 states are going to model legislation after 1070, so I’m extremely encouraged. In fact, I’ve talked to 34 states that would like to do it but don’t have a legislature or governor that would sign a bill.
“That’s what scares the Obama administration. They’re not worried about profiling. They’re not worried about anything but enforcement. What scares them is the fact that the laws are actually going to be enforced.”
He says the administration is worried about enforcement for two political reasons.
“First of all you have the open border anarchists who want to change the political makeup of America, and that’s through change in the demographics. Their best hope is open borders.
“Then you’ve got the other side, the corporate oligarchy, the profits-over-patriotism crowd. They want cheap labor. They don’t care what the cost is to America, and they have a stranglehold on Washington D.C., while 70 to 80 percent of Americans say close the borders, enforce the law.”
Pearce agrees with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham that the policy established by the 14th Amendment — that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen — needs to be changed because it was never intended to be applied to aliens.
Sen. Jon Kyl says that when he asked President Obama to secure the border, Obama’s response was that if he did, it would remove the incentive for Republicans to negotiate on comprehensive immigration reform. Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has called the refusal to enforce the law an impeachable offense. Pearce was asked if he agrees.
“Absolutely,” he declares.
“Five to ten thousand folks come across that border daily, and what’s coming across — 20 percent have criminal convictions — are gang members, drug smugglers, human smugglers, child molesters, rapists. It’s an invasion. It’s in violation of the Constitution. Yes, it’s impeachable. He not only neglects to do it, now he’s refusing to do it. It’s impeachable.”
As for reports that a Mexican drug cartel has placed a $1 million bounty on the head of tough Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pearce says “the silence is almost deafening from Washington, D.C.”
The illegal immigration situation is far more extensive and pernicious than most Americans suspect. This is a direct consequence of depraved, self-serving and reckless policies of and suppression of information by Obama and the Democratic controlled federal government. Complicit and abetting this is the intentional avoidance of the issue by a vast majority of the news media which constitutes malfeasance by the press. It is no wonder that Arizona, backed into a corner by the federal government’s willful abdication of its Constitutional responsibility regarding border security, was forced to enact its immigration legislation.
The following article characterizes the severity of the illegal immigration problem regarding both the scope and magnitude of the crimes and the politicization of the issue. It is a real eye opener.
Immigration enforcement union took a no-confidence vote in its leadership
Joel S. Gehrke Jr. 08/04/10
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents believe overwhelmingly that their department leadership has become so politicized as to compromise the effectiveness of ICE and the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.
In June, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — an AFL-CIO affiliate — and affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven. In a letter announcing the vote, the National Council criticized the directors for “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and said their leaders have “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”
Janice Kephart at the Center for Immigration Studies has the letter, which includes several biting indictments of ICE failures by ICE agents. For instance:
Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty legislation, than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, and the need for more manpower and resources within the ICE ERO to address it. ICE ERO is currently overwhelmed by the massive criminal alien problem in the United States resulting in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities.
Kind of puts the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement in perspective, doesn’t it?
While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.
The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.
Arizona is by no means is the only state that has considered or enacted illegal immigration legislation. Virginia and several other states are working on laws that are fairly similar to Arizona’s SB1020 in order to more effectively address the multitude of problems associated with illegal aliens. This all is in response to the federal government’s abdication of its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders and protect the citizens of this country.
Is Virginia the Next Arizona? State Lawmakers Fuel Immigration Debate
August 03, 2010 FoxNews.com
A handful of Virginia lawmakers may be positioning their state to be the next battleground in the immigration debate.
Virginia, one of nearly 20 states toying with the idea of an Arizona-style immigration law, hurtled onto the national radar screen this week after Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ruled that police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops.
While a northern Virginia county has been at the forefront of the push for stricter local immigration laws for three years, none of this activity has prompted the kind of nationwide backlash -- in the form of boycotts and a federal government lawsuit -- that Arizona triggered with its law in April. Those behind the Virginia proposals, including a proposed statewide law, are hoping their state can avoid the kind of public relations and legal pitfalls that have, at least temporarily, ensnared Arizona.
"This is good policy. ... It's both constitutional and prudent," said Robert Marshall, the Republican state delegate who originally requested the ruling from Cuccinelli, who is also a Republican. "Our actions here can't be dismissed."
Marshall told FoxNews.com he has asked Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell to issue an executive order codifying what Cuccinelli wrote. He expressed doubt that any single piece of legislation will pass through the state Senate, but he suggested a carefully worded directive could help shape the national debate.
He said Arizona went astray by requiring law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status. Cuccinelli describes Virginia's policy as discretionary.
"Unlike Arizona, you wouldn't say every time you stop somebody, do this," Marshall said. "I think that was one of the reasons the Arizona law was (blocked)." Marshall said he's confident Virginia's policy would be held up in court if challenged.
Cuccinelli also cited that difference as a key distinction between the two laws.
"The difference, of course, is that the Arizona law enforcement officer is going to be under the cloud of the requirement of that statute," he said. "But the way we operate it here, we're in good shape."
A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the governor is reviewing her state's law to see if it can be refined in light of the court decision blocking key parts of it, but was not sure whether she was considering the possibility of making immigration checks discretionary as opposed to mandatory.
Though Cuccinelli's ruling drew widespread attention, it's unclear how much direct impact it will have on Virginia law enforcement.
Virginia Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, a Democrat, said most police forces won't change their policies in light of the opinion.
"Is it going to affect a single thing? The answer is no," he said. "A majority of the police forces won't bother with it."
Saslaw noted that per Cuccinelli's opinion, state officers are still advised against arresting anyone for a civil immigration offense. Saslaw said he doesn't see Virginia, a non-border state, becoming a focal point of the immigration debate any time soon, and he rejected the idea that McDonnell could issue an order codifying Cuccinelli's ruling.
"We don't have a dictatorship in Virginia," Saslaw said. "It would carry absolutely not a shred of legal validity."
McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said Marshall was not specifically calling for an executive order. The actual letter to the governor asked McDonnell to "direct all appropriate law enforcement officers of the commonwealth to implement the policies referenced" in the Cuccinelli decision.
Regardless of how Cuccinelli's ruling is interpreted, a few Virginia lawmakers are pushing hard to keep their state in the middle of the immigration furor. Though it's not anywhere close to a border state, Virginia's illegal immigrant population, concentrated mostly in the north, has been pegged at about 300,000 by the Pew Hispanic Center. Any crime connected to that community has the potential to feed the debate.
Just as the killing of rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant fueled the push for border security in Arizona, a recent killing in Virginia has stirred emotions over the issue. An illegal immigrant on Sunday was involved in a crash that killed one nun and injured two others -- he reportedly had a prior drunk-driving record and was going through deportation proceedings.
The crash happened in Prince William County, which is ground zero for immigration controversy in Virginia. Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart seized on the incident, as he continued to push a proposed immigration law similar to Arizona's.
Stewart said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com that Virginia will "adjust our course" in light of the Arizona case and said he hopes the federal government decides to sue his state too.
"Virginia has shown in the past that people care about this issue even 2,500 miles away from the most porous parts of our southern border. Especially in Prince William County, we are very close to the nation's Capitol. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama can't ignore what is happening in their own backyard," he wrote.
Prince William County, which Marshall represents, has a local law that requires police to ask about the immigration status of anyone they arrest. Stewart said Cuccinelli's ruling doesn't dramatically change anything there but that "it is good have the Virginia AG on board."
Stewart is pushing for a statewide policy to require police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. He claims the proposal anticipates the legal pitfalls that trapped Arizona. He has launched a political action committee to raise money for a public campaign in support of the bill, and he has a started a website, www.virginiaruleoflaw.com, where he is trying to collect 100,000 signatures.
Saslaw ridiculed the push.
"The bill ain't gonna make it through the General Assembly," he said. "It won't even get to a law."
The early signs from the judicial hearings on Arizona’s immigration law that is being challenged by the Obama Administration are auspicious for the state. Comments made by the judge who had been appointed by Bill Clinton appear to challenge the basis of the federal government’s case.
The citizens of Arizona (and in the rest of the country as well) are hoping that this portends a quick and favorable outcome to the Obama Administration’s politically motivated lawsuit.
Arizona should ultimately sue Obama for legal costs and for the accumulated costs that illegal immigrants have burdened Arizona with.
We all need to stand behind Arizona in its defense of the citizens not only of the state but also of the rest of the country. Write Governor Brewer letters of support and encouragement. You can also make an online donation to the cause that will ultimately help all of us.
Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins
Jerry Markon Washington Post July 23, 2010
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.
As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.
"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a "Good afternoon, Governor" from the judge.
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."
The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation's immigration laws.
Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.
Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don't have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."
"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does," Kneedler said, citing as his main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption."
Based on the Constitution's supremacy clause, it says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the government's lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.
Bolton questioned key parts of that argument, especially relating to a section of the law that appears to require immigration-status checks if police stop someone for another law enforcement purpose and suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.
Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.
"There really is no flexibility," Kneedler said.
He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said.
Bouma ridiculed the foreign policy concerns.
"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."
Bolton is hearing six other lawsuits filed against the Arizona law. A former Arizona state court judge, she was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, but legal observers say she is hard to pigeonhole ideologically.
Outside the gleaming glass-and-white iron courthouse, named for former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an angry subtext reflected the divide over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the Arizona law clasped hands, prayed and held signs condemning it.
"The law is racist. The police are harassing us because of our brown skin," said Marta Calderon, who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign saying "Stop SB1070," as the immigration law is known.
Nearby, Brandy Baron waved an American flag and expressed her support for the law and her "disgust" at efforts to overturn it.
"I am amazed that the Justice Department would have the nerve to sue us for trying to get laws that are already on the books enforced," she said.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments