Posted on 04/29/2010 2:59:50 AM PDT by ketelone
Challenges to Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigration have started to emerge, with a Latino clergy group planning to file the first lawsuit seeking to halt enforcement of the crackdown and others aiming to block the law at the ballot box.
The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders says it will file suit Thursday in Phoenix federal court, the first of several lawsuits expected in coming months.
A draft of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press shows the coalition will seek an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due-process rights by allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be detained before they're convicted.
Other Hispanic and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, are also planning lawsuits. And U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law.
On Wednesday, a group filed papers to launch a referendum drive that could put the law on hold until 2012 if organizers wait until the last minute to turn in petition signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot.
Opponents of the law have until late July or early August to file the more than 76,000 signatures _ the same time the law is set to go into effect. If they get enough signatures, the law would be delayed until a vote.
But the deadline to put a question on the November ballot is July 1, and a referendum filing later than that could delay a vote on the law until 2012, officials with the Secretary of State's Office said.
"That would be a pretty big advantage" to the law's opponents, said Andrew Chavez, head of a Phoenix-based petition-circulating firm and chairman of the One Arizona referendum campaign.
The legislation's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said he has no doubt voters will support the new law at the ballot box, which would then protect it from repeal by the Legislature. In Arizona, measures approved by voters can only be repealed at the ballot box.
The law, which thrust Arizona into the national spotlight since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed it last week, requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
The clergy group's lawsuit targets a provision allowing police to arrest illegal-immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them, according to the draft. It says the solicitation of work is protected by the First Amendment.
State Rep. Ben Miranda, a Phoenix Democrat who will serve as the local attorney on the case, said it was important to file the suit quickly to show local Latinos and the rest of the country that there's still a chance the law won't be enacted.
"I think there's real damage being caused right now," Miranda said. "How do you measure the kind of fear ... going on in many parts of this community?"
At least three Arizona cities also are considering lawsuits to block the law. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the measure would be "economically devastating," and called on the City Council to sue the state to stop it from taking effect.
The council rejected that idea Tuesday, yet the mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.
Tucson leaders also are considering their options to block the law, and Flagstaff City Councilman Rick Swanson said the city had a duty to protect its residents who might be targeted.
Meanwhile, the effect of the law continued to ripple beyond Arizona.
A Republican Texas lawmaker said she'll introduce a measure similar to the Arizona law next year. Texas Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball said she will push for the law in the January legislative session, according to Wednesday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.
And Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota expressed support for the crackdown. "I'd do something very similar" if elected," Former Rep. Scott McInnis, told KHOW-AM radio in Denver.
These guys cant do anything to stop the law. Let all good Arizonans get behind this law, and make sure that it is passed at the ballot box, keeping it safe from repeal by cowardly dems. Also, lets make sure that if and when the referendum happens, all polling booths are fully guarded against attacks by Mexican thugs.
“Opponents of the law have until late July or early August to file the more than 76,000 signatures _ the same time the law is set to go into effect. If they get enough signatures, the law would be delayed until a vote.”
Mostly signatures from illegals no doubt.
All it takes is one judge, to override the law. The dems have plenty of them in the palm of there hand.
And where is the IRS? Oh wait, it only cares about conservative clergy that wade into politics.
if I was a member of a group that wouldn’t allow me to defend myself, I’d get the hell out !!!!!
Supporters of the law should file for their own referendum by July 1 in order to get it on the ballot by November.
That way the Left won’t be able to run out the clock to 2012.
K.I.S.S.
Keep It Simple Stupid
of course they might lose the MILLIONS to start raising SALTWATER SHRIMP in AZ
I must be dense. The AZ law exactly mirrors Federal law, so even if the statement is true that Federal law pre-empts state law, how is that going to change that particular AZ law?
What can be done with people that delusional?
=========================================
REFERENCE U.S. Rep. Steve King. " I’m wondering if we look at the map of Arizona Congressman Grijalva’s congressional district, if we haven’t already ceded that component of Arizona to Mexico, judging by the voice that comes out of Grijalva. Grijalva’s advocating for Mexico rather than the United States and against the rule of law, which is one of the central pillars of American exceptionalism. Grijalva believes Arizona's new law, which requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally, is racist and does little more than “propagate the idea separate but equal treatment under the law can be codified,” Grijalva saud.
=======================================
ACTION NOW Arizonans should act now. Arizona elected officials under oath like Grijalva and the aforementioned who challenge the will of the people----that won’t enforce the new immigration law----are using public funds to aid and abet felonies against Arizona (and other US citizens).
===========================================
FOR EXAMPLE (1) Investors in Arizona tax-exempt bonds may have been misled about the use of their investments. (2) Arizona elected officials under oath like Grijalva and the aforementioned who challenge the will of the people----that won’t enforce new immigration law may have jeopardized investments in Arizona tax-exempt bonds
===================================
ACTION Do the research on timelines when Arizona legislators voted for the sale of billions of tax-exempt bonds to finance law enforcement, schools, highways, water facilities, municipal and county grants, etc, etc, etc. These bonds were then sold to tax-exempt investors.
Sometimes bond sales are voted upon---in state ballot referenda. Arizona public officials may have mis-stated uses of tax-exempt bonds on referenda ballots.
If immigrants illegals voted on tax-exempt bond issues, that could negate the bond revenue and subject the illegals to prosecution
MISLEADING BOND INVESTORS IS A SERIOUS CRIME Investors in Arizona tax-exempt bonds were clearly misled about the use of tax-exempt bond revenue. The SEC closely monitors tax-exempt bond sales. The SEC takes a dim view about misleading tax-exempt investors and the misuse of tax-exempt bond revenue. So does the IRS.
===================================
HERE'S WHAT TO DO:
(1) Express your concerns about Arizona elected officials under oath like Grijalva and the aforementioned who challenge the will of the people----that won’t enforce the new immigration law; this is a misappropriation of tax-exempt bond revenue.
EMAIL enforcement@SEC.gov.
(2) Contact the IRS to report suspected tax fraud and tax law violations by officials using tax-exempt bond revenue in ways not disclosed to investors.
IRS TOLL-FREE Tel 1-800-829-0433 You may remain anonymous.
(3) Arizona elected officials under oath like Grijalva and the aforementioned officials who challenge the will of the people----that won’t enforce new immigration law have co-opted investors in tax-exempt bonds; they should be reported for fiduciary negligence.
EMAIL askDOJ@USDOJ.gov
=====================================
Demand that banks holding Arizona tax-exempt bond revenue conduct an outside audit immediately and reveal their findings (or you will report banks to state and federal regulators).
Bond sales that were put to referendum are subject to penalties, since voters were misled about the uses of bond revenue.
The Arizona Secy of State should be asked to release all official documents filed WRT tax-exempt bond issues.
“Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders”
Standing in a garage doesn’t make you a car. Calling yourself a car doesn’t make you a car. The only way to become a car is to be built by a car manufacturer.
The arguments mentioned in the article are completely anf totally insane.
IOW, they are certain to pass judicial muster and win the day.
Not LOL.
P. S. Of course people can be detained before being convicted. It’s done every day.
They aren’t delusional. They want it their way and to heck with the democratic process.
At least we know who the enemy is.
And lefty politicians are in lock step with them, using tactics similar to what the Nazi's used. Yeah, you read that right, Nazi's you lefties! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
There are allot of us regular citizens, both on the left and on the right that want our borders secure and that illegals should be sent home and only allowed in the legal way.
“A draft of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press shows the coalition will seek an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona’s law violates due-process rights by allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be detained before they’re convicted. “
This is laughable.
The arriviste parasites and moochers are descending en masse. They all want to take a bite out of a once great nation. The more illegal alien moochers you allow in through “kindness”, the more you will get later. Half of Mexico would move here if we had no borders.
The pre-emption issue under the Supremecy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution may have some validity, if in fact, the Arizona Law is found to regulate the border. The problem with the arguement, however, is that the law has nothing to do with crossing the border, but rather, what happens once an illegal alien has already entered the State of Arizona illegally -- a subtle, but significant distinction.
The second argument will ultimately fail because law enforcement, by its very nature, results in the arrest and detention of people suspected of illegal activity. Just ask anyone who has been arrested for suspected DUI, suspected shoplifting, or suspected [fill in the crime]. Sometimes the police are wrong and the charges are dropped or the person is aquitted, but that does not mean that the underlying criminal statue is unconstitutional on its face. If a person is wrongfully detained, then the remedy is not to throw out the law, but to seek damages for false arrest, maliscious prosecution, or violation of civil rights under 42 USC §1981 et seq.
Is there any doubt 76,00+++ signatures, illegal or otherwise, will be filed? This law may not even see the light of day but Jan Brewer, and her courageous stance, has resurrected the sleeping giant in other States to do something to protect its citizens.
signatures, would that be their kids and people who cannot speak English , illegals signing their names too
Does that mean that all we need is 76,000 signatures to delay the law of Health Care? Why are we not doing that as well. If they want to delay our bills, then lets give them the same treatment!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.