Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Hollow Case Against Arizona
IBD Editorials ^ | July 7, 2010 | Investors Business Daily staff

Posted on 07/07/2010 7:49:00 PM PDT by Kaslin

Law: After smearing Arizona's immigration law as racial profiling, the Justice Department has issued its lawsuit against the state. But it's not about civil rights anymore. It's about a federal "right" to not enforce U.S. law.

When Arizona passed a law last April mirroring U.S. federal immigration law, it was the opposite of the sort of challenges states historically bring to the feds.

Back when, say, schools were being desegregated, federal troops had to face off against state sheriffs because state laws were in direct contradiction to federal laws.

Not so with Arizona's law, which requires the state to help buttress federal law. That means federal and state agents should be enforcing an out-of-control illegal immigration crisis — brought on by spillover from Mexico's horrific cartel war — together.

But to the politicos now running the federal government, Arizona's law is, for political reasons, painted as racist.

"I think it certainly could invite profiling," huffed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last May, shortly after admitting she hadn't even read the law.

"We could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done," worried Attorney General Eric Holder back then.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; holder; lawsuit; obama; sb1070

1 posted on 07/07/2010 7:49:01 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is really chutzpa: soetoro sues AZ for enacting a law which he, as President, is sworn to uphold but doesn´t, which could have him impeached, but doesn´t since the criminal Congress gives him a pass on having their own prerogatives stolen.

God help us.


2 posted on 07/07/2010 8:02:44 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The federal government now has the “right” not to enforce its own laws? Then why have a congress? Why even enact laws? Jim Madison is spinning in his grave.


3 posted on 07/07/2010 8:03:55 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Can Arizona bring a counter suit for the money it has spent on illegal aliens because the federal government hasn’t enforced the immigration laws? I think that all 50 states could get into a class action suit on this. And how about bringing charges against the executive branch for not enforcing the constitutionally passed laws.


4 posted on 07/07/2010 8:09:13 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fhayek

Basically they are arguing that enforcement of laws is optional. But this is exactly what Obastard believes since he told the Justice Dept to not enforce the laws against voter intimidation.


5 posted on 07/07/2010 8:12:24 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
" It's about a federal "right" to not enforce U.S. law. "

Sure ..... when black is white and day is night.

The Federal government with possibly one exception for patents held by the government does not have rights!

The federal government has duties and obligations to the citizens of the United States. Nothing more and nothing less.

6 posted on 07/07/2010 8:13:32 PM PDT by An Old Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Exactly, but does this not erode the very foundation of the republic? We are less and less ruled by laws, and more and more by the caprice of men.


7 posted on 07/07/2010 8:15:10 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

“The federal government has duties and obligations to the citizens of the United States. Nothing more and nothing less.”

Which would include being a retirement plan and a medical care provider, naturally!/s;)


8 posted on 07/07/2010 8:18:34 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fhayek

Of course. But the goal of Obastard and the liberals is to DESTROY the idea of equal rights and replace it with the idea of equal outcome, with some pigs being more equal than others.


9 posted on 07/07/2010 8:25:11 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama is a miserable failure.


10 posted on 07/07/2010 8:26:30 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This has nothing to do with the enforcement of immigration law. Obama knows that there is plenty of case law that gives states the right to enforce federal law, and that there’s zero chance that the Feds will win on this. And they know the racial profiling argument is BS too.

Why then did they file the suit if, as I claim, they know they will lose?

Because there’s an election coming up, and they’re behind the 8-ball. The economy and other issues have caused the level of Hispanic support for Obama to drop by about 20% since his election. But since this lawsuit was filed - it’s gone back up 3%.

This lawsuit is a political maneuver designed to elevate Obama in polls and by extension, any Democrat Congressional candidates he endorses. Obama knows the majority of the country supports the law but he only cares about regaining Hispanic voter support in time to keep Harry Reid and other influential Dems in power in 2010.


11 posted on 07/07/2010 8:29:18 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

The Left would love nothing better than to have the focus taken off the economy and oil spill to discuss anything else (e.g., a lawsuit that is a political “loser”; NASA’s “new mission”). Can’t wait to see what ridiculous new “controversies” they come up with from now to November.


12 posted on 07/07/2010 8:29:36 PM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

This seems to be a risky gambit for Obama. I wager that for every vote he wins from the hispanic population, two moderates jump off the fence away from him.


13 posted on 07/07/2010 8:34:44 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So what happens if the Feds succeed with their lawsuit? When we’re told we have no options but to bend over and enjoy the invasion?


14 posted on 07/07/2010 8:36:08 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fhayek

Sounds like a plan to me. If the Federal Government continues to maintain that it doesn’t have to enforce its own laws, then logically, the citizens don’t have to abide by laws that the Federal Government passes.


15 posted on 07/07/2010 8:38:05 PM PDT by Enterprise (As a disaster unfolds, a putz putts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I think that there is a lot more than the Hispanic support for 2010, I think that Obama is going to try to ram the illegal alien amnesty through in a lame duck session after the 2010 election, in time to get all those people registered to vote in 2012.

I wonder if he wants to give amnesty to Korean aliens, as well. We have a Korean friend who was here on a student visa while in college and has been trying to get back legally ever since.


16 posted on 07/07/2010 8:41:38 PM PDT by Eva (Aand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf

This is amazing - the government’s complaint appears to be a combination of

a) We’re too busy catching terrorists
&
b) Congress assigned the DHS,DOJ and DOS the task of enforcing immigration laws, but they really don’t have to.

An interesting point might be that it seems to want to make State law subserviant not to Federal law, but to Federal policy.

Since policy can change on a whim, no State law, even those fully in agreement with Federal law, could be secure.


17 posted on 07/07/2010 8:51:15 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

By the reasoning of the DOJ, local officers should not be arresting bank robbers since banks are the perview of the FBI. Also, they wouldn’t be used to fight terrorism, interstate theft etc. The DOJ really should be careful there.


18 posted on 07/07/2010 9:12:47 PM PDT by McGavin999 (I'm sorry, your race card is overdrawn and no further charges can be accepted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fhayek
The federal government now has the “right” not to enforce its own laws?

Actually, the Executive Branch does indeed have that right. And the Arizona law does nothing change that.

As far as the legal aspect goes, the Feds case has no merit whatsoever. The Federal government continues to have exclusive supremacy here. The Arizona law does not usurp federal law in any way.

19 posted on 07/07/2010 9:16:30 PM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Serious question. There is no field preemption or conflict preemption here. What is the government’s constitutional argument?


20 posted on 07/07/2010 9:53:36 PM PDT by uscabjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


21 posted on 07/07/2010 10:09:56 PM PDT by HiJinx (Why govern when you can golf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Sounds like a plan to me. If the Federal Government continues to maintain that it doesn’t have to enforce its own laws, then logically, the citizens don’t have to abide by laws that the Federal Government passes.<<<<<

Think again comrade The law we will obey is called “Force” If you are a member of the governing elite then you have choice!


22 posted on 07/07/2010 10:47:03 PM PDT by timetostand (Ya say ya wanna revolution -- OK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Sounds like a plan to me. If the Federal Government continues to maintain that it doesn’t have to enforce its own laws, then logically, the citizens don’t have to abide by laws that the Federal Government passes.<<<<<

Think again comrade The law we will obey is called “Force” If you are a member of the governing elite then you have choice!


23 posted on 07/07/2010 10:47:10 PM PDT by timetostand (Ya say ya wanna revolution -- OK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: timetostand

Yes, I understand their thinking. Classic do as I say, not as I do. That dog will only hunt a short time, then it will run into some ground red pepper.


24 posted on 07/07/2010 10:59:25 PM PDT by Enterprise (As a disaster unfolds, a putz putts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
So how long before Obama's Injustice department goes after the "sanctuary" cities for passing laws and resolutions that violate Federal law and especially in regard to immigration enforcement?

What breathtaking hypocrites progressives are!

25 posted on 07/07/2010 11:01:19 PM PDT by highlander_UW (The left proclaimed Obama as a Lightworker, but his work habit proclaims him to be a light worker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uscabjd
And when questioned about actual preemption they are stammering morons. From today's press briefing....

"Q Thanks, Robert. First I’m going to put aside what you said about being a Dallas fan. I’m just going to pretend that didn't happen. (Laughter.) On another more important topic, one thing as you have mentioned several times today, the President directed Justice to look at the Arizona law because he doesn’t want a patchwork of state and local laws. But right now there are dozens of so-called sanctuary cities that have their own policies that might potentially conflict with federal law, something that's led Governor Brewer to say that if Arizona is in violation of federal law, then so are these localities. So my question is, why did the President only ask DOJ to look at Arizona and not everywhere?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, well, let me see if I can get -- I don't know the answer to that, but I will try to seek some answer on that."

26 posted on 07/07/2010 11:13:01 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
Obama is a miserable failure.

I can think of only one thing worse, "Obama is a success."

27 posted on 07/07/2010 11:51:02 PM PDT by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has it limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RS

Something bothers me about the Complaint—

“Tony West,Assistant Attorney General
Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney
Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
Varu Chilakamarri (NY Bar #4324299)
Joshua Wilkenfeld (NY Bar #4440681)
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 616-8489/Fax (202) 616-8470 varudhini.chilakamarri@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States”

—the two lawyers to state their bar numbers are puppy lawyers—the senior attorneys only state their names.

Varu is a vegetarian HuffPo blogger—she’s being set up to take the fall and Rule 11 sanctions.


28 posted on 07/07/2010 11:57:59 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Democrats have been:

1. Threatened by the cartel and are caving in

2. Given some quid pro quo by the cartel and are reluctant to go after it


29 posted on 07/08/2010 12:45:56 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva

On thw Wednesday Sean Hannity show, he showed a poll from CO that showed 72% of HISPANICS were in favor of AZ law. That stupid cow, Kristen Powers, spun that poll into “doesn’t mean what it says” to “not indicative of the nation” to “people too stupid to respond to the poll”.

She kept going on about the Latino vote in the upcoming elections. Since when do illegals have the right to vote? I smell massive voter fraud to insure that RATs stay in power. Pelosi ain’t going quietly.


30 posted on 07/08/2010 3:17:36 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This
So what happens if the Feds succeed with their lawsuit? When we’re told we have no options but to bend over and enjoy the invasion?

I would hope that the Governor, despite the cost, would deploy the state regiment of national guards to the border and issue a call to arms for the militia.

Won't happen, but that would be some real "Hope and Change" right there.

31 posted on 07/08/2010 4:45:52 AM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Well, this is what we get for hiring nothing but lawyers to run our country.

Bottom line - IMO - keep the focus on “illegal” in the immigration issue. (those libs love to use smoke & mirrors to cloud the real issue). Remind our politicians that granting amnesty is nothing more than sanctioning illegal behavior. Granting them a “free” entry card does not guarantee any allegiance to the USofA.

32 posted on 07/08/2010 5:54:58 AM PDT by beachn4fun (Libs use name-calling to silence the opposition's voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
As far as the legal aspect goes, the Feds case has no merit whatsoever. The Federal government continues to have exclusive supremacy here. The Arizona law does not usurp federal law in any way.

Exactly! Did these people not go to law school?

They know that this lawsuit will go nowhere but an effective suit is not the point. This is simply pandering at it's worst. Shameful political posturing by this administration to get a special interest on board.

33 posted on 07/08/2010 6:09:28 AM PDT by vlad335
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

The illegals cannot vote in Arizona. Arizona has a picture ID requirement. Illegals will be voting in other states, like California, however. I’m pretty sure that’s how Sanchez won her Congress seat in Santa Ana. I read that Obama has lost 20% of the Hispanic vote and that he is using the immigration amnesty issue to win it back. So far, he’s only regained 3% of the 20% that he lost.

I think that there might be another issue going on here that no one is mentioning. Arizona passed a law requiring all candidates who want to be on the ballot, show their birth certificates. Obama’s going nuts over it.


34 posted on 07/08/2010 6:47:05 AM PDT by Eva (Aand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All

watch the preliminary injunction hearing.

a test for the preliminary injunction is a high degree of prevailing on the merits.

I a preliminary is granted, the fix is in.


35 posted on 07/08/2010 9:51:57 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Arizona has a picture ID requirement.

What does that mean besides a retired person looking at a picture?

36 posted on 07/08/2010 9:59:21 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

You think that the poll watchers cannot match the pictures with the live people or think that they will have phony picture ID?


37 posted on 07/08/2010 10:14:49 AM PDT by Eva (Aand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eva
You think that the poll watchers cannot match the pictures with the live people or think that they will have phony picture ID?

I hope you're just joking Eve.

You do realize that millions of illegals have/use fraudulent ID's, with 60 percent of them having multiple fraudulent ID's.

You think they use ID's with other peoples photos on them?

38 posted on 07/08/2010 11:13:39 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: glennaro
"(e.g., a lawsuit that is a political “loser”; NASA’s “new mission”). "

Hummmmmmm . . . . . Is it possible that all us Christians and Jews are getting the smelly end of the stick?

What about that separation of church and state thing. Are we really seeing the beginnings of the new state religion.

That's not gonna set well with some folks I know.

39 posted on 07/08/2010 4:13:03 PM PDT by An Old Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001
Which would include being a retirement plan and a medical care provider, naturally! /s ;)

Sure that's it! Free money for everyone!

40 posted on 07/08/2010 4:16:45 PM PDT by An Old Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson