Obama Administration Sues Arizona
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 1:51 PM
And he wonders why his approval is at 42%?
The Obama Administration sued Arizona today for their immigration law that enforces the national immigration law. Obama joked about the law at a public event in May.
The AP reported:
The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation’s toughest immigration crackdown.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix argues that Arizona’s law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations usurps federal authority.
“In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit says. “This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests.”
The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law declared invalid.
Legal Insurrection has a copy of the case.
70% of Arizona voters support the law.
Not Obama.
Related… The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year — an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 89 Comments
Nick commented:
Chalk it up to “Dumb Ass”
Mender commented:
“Dumb Ass”, Nick? Please. He’d be lucky to get away with a petty name like that. This administration’s f#@king mad!!
down with dems commented:
And the biggest irony:
The lawsuit is titled “The United States of America v. The State of Arizona”
Pre-emption, supremacy, and commerce clause are the arguments. NOT DISCRIMINATION.
Guess all that trash talking by Obama and the feds about discrimination was a bunch of LIES.
Chrissy B commented:
First declare war on the individual states, then delcare war on individual citizens. Capt. Kick@$$ is an idiot.
WSG commented:
The Administration is going to argue that the respective parties should stick to their Constitutional roles?
You just can’t make this stuff up.
kato commented:
The government is good at filing harassing lawsuits, terrible at winning them.
The government is good at making unfounded allegations — none better than the teleprompter-reading blowhard — but terrible at backing up the hot air with facts.
Chronos commented:
“[A]lien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled “An Act concerning Aliens,” which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.”
Thomas Jefferson seems to know a little more about his own document than does Barry, The One-der Uniter…
This is not going to end well…
Nellie commented:
Divisive is as divisive does.
AZ is US.
Reaganite Republican commented:
The Constitution supports Arizona- good luck you pompous nothing
gus commented:
The U.S is not fulfilling it’s obligations, so Arizona is.
This is a tap in.
kansas commented:
I wonder why his support is at 42% myself. Seems kind of high considering all he has done to ruin the country.
Kevin P commented:
A slam dunk for AZ – until Kagan is on the bench?
John commented:
Kansas #12. Spot on. Who are those idiots who still support him? 42%. There is always a group of 29% that strongly support him no matter what he does. That’s nearly 3 out of 10 people that are dumb as rocks. Why so many of them?
Neoavatara commented:
Political, legally, morally…basically any way you want to read this, they are on the wrong side of this issue.
http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=11359
Christinewjc commented:
This is ironic. MSNBC – The Media of Mass Deception masters – has a poll up that asks the question:
Do you support Arizona’s tough new law on illegal immigration?
After I voted YES in the poll, the results were:
95.8%
Yes
2,131,720 votes
4.2%
No
93,596 votes
Ha ha ha haaaa!! Olberdummy is gonna burst a blood vessel over that poll!
gus commented:
John 30 percent are either illiterate, or stupid.
Or both.
Unions suck.
reliapundit commented:
obama is defending illegal aleins and attacking one of the 50 states.
that says everything you need to know about him and his comrades.
down with dems commented:
JohnNo Gravatar
July 6th, 2010 | 2:38 pm | #15
They’re the ones who expect to cash in via Obama’s presidency. The ones who lined up in Detroit for “Obama money”. The ones who will get free health care, free broadband internet, free cell phones, free citizenship.
“Ima get mine. Obama gonna give it to me.”
That’s how he got elected, and as long as there’s still a bit of HOPE that he might still deliver, they’ll keep supporting him.
The Dems survive off of creating, increasing, and perpetuating a group dependent on the government. Eventually the Dems will run out of other people’s money to redistribute, and only then will their supporters start to turn away from them. But once Republicans take back over, those same people won’t do anything differently to change their lives, so when the next election rolls around the Dems will say “look you’re no better off than when you voted us out” and promise the moon again: “we’ll tax those mean rich people and take care of you again, kiddos”. It’s a sick and endless cycle.
Peggy commented:
States are permitted great latitude to regulate activities within their borders. Local governments get their powers from state constitutions and laws. If state laws conflict with federal law, then preemption might kick in. It would then behoove a state to get its laws in line with federal law.
Asking for ID is something local and state police have always done. This is nothing new. The AZ law largely mirrors the federal law. The AZ law does not authorize deportation, but will have violators of immigration law turned over to the feds, which is what states have already been doing.
I see no case for preemption by the feds to win.
I am not a lawyer. I have worked as an economic expert on federal and state telecom regulation in legal proceedings. These are well-developed areas of law in my experience. That doesn’t mean, however, that a politicized court will not side with O.
Robert commented:
““In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit says.
The federal government has abdicated its “authority” on this issue by failing to enforce its own laws.
“This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”
This “authority” is also dependent on the consent of the people, whom polls show are NOT supportive of the federal government’s positions in this case.
“The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests.”
Again left out of the litany is the consideration of the interests of American citizens, including LOCAL law enforcement which is coming under fire from outside the country.
A rancher was killed.
A local courthouse has been hit with gunfire.
Local law enforcement official are coming under fire.
Illegal immigration has distorted labor market influences for decades, with no relief provided by the federal government, despite an explicit promise made by numerous officials and representatives of that same federal government in the 1980′s to curb the border transgressions.
Statistics show numerous crimes, many violent, being suffered by American citizens at the hand of illegal aliens, along with being victimized by accidents perpetrated by illegal aliens. An automobile accident committed by an illegal alien could also constitute criminal behavior in that false information could have been provided to gain license. Additionally, these crimes and incidents, along with the corresponding and other financial consequences, have an undesired impact on the aforementioned “humanitarian interests” of American citizens.
The federal government itself has recently stated that crossing the border without following established legal procedures is a crime.
Therefore, it can be argued that the federal government is suing on behalf of criminals, as it, itself, describes them.
Peggy commented:
P.S. I also thought there was a post 9-11 federal program which cities can subscribe to and obtain funding if they participate more directly in being part of the front line in immigration enforcement.
Further, I don’t think local and state law enforcement have ever been forbidden by federal law to be part of immigration enforcement, except by cities or states that refuse to aid the federal government in this area.
Finally, I recall W Bush trying to tee this up the summer 2001. Polls showed about 70% (maybe higher) of Americans were opposed to amnesty. Then 9-11 happened. If it weren’t for 9-11, I don’t think the people would have woken up to this and many other evils going on.
–
Me commented:
Is November hear yet? I cannot believe how much this adminstration has turned everything they touch into corruption… God help us all.
BarbaraS commented:
Has the federal government ever before sued a state because it enacted one of its laws? Doesn’t the Constitution limit powers of the federal government explicitly and don’t all the other powers belong to the states and therefore to the people? This case will end up in the SC and if Arthur Kennedy is having a bad day, the feds will prevail. Scary, isn’t it that four justices will ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold on orders from Obama and the dim party.
militant conservative commented:
Meet the illegal aliens and the federal troops at the boarder of a soverign state and turn them both back. Neither has jursidiction nor “rights” is this matter.
Andreas K. commented:
So the federal government is sueing a state over a federal law.
Smart power.
notsurprised commented:
try these numbers:
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/13/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration
Kukee American commented:
I don’t get all the angst about Obama. He is only protecting his own kind (here illegally and overstaying his visa.) So give the Kenyan some slack. He is just stupid and doesn’t knwo what he is doing.
Let me explain: HE IS SOLIDIFYING HIS DEFEAT and HIS IMPEACHMENT.
Mark1957 commented:
Sic Semper Tyrannis
The Obama Regime continues it’s march toward Marxism, they try to destroy everything that is right and just, yet in the end they will fail. Americans are awaking to the cold hard truth that the leftists want to enslave the very people they claim to protect. Good will triumph over evil, we will not submit !
Non Timebo Mala
Paddy commented:
The lawsuit is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed.
Sojourner commented:
…The case is assigned to Judge Neil V. Wake. He was nominated by President Bush in 2003 and confirmed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in 2004.
..”A Phoenix native, Mr. Wake, 61, had been in private practice, specializing in commercial, administrative and constitutional litigation, appellate practice and Indian law. He served as a judge pro tempore on the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1985, 1992 and 1996-98, and is co-author of the Arizona Appellate Handbook:”
http://207.41.19.15/Web/OCELibra.nsf/6f418f0d826f30d8882563a30076ab09/20f56742b69ef2e088256e5600005851?OpenDocument
rjbklyn commented:
So let me get this straight. The Feds actually teach law officers from all over the country on how to enforce immigration law, then sue them because they do?
This suit was filed not on discrimination and racial profiling as the DOJ and the president have been crying about, but on pre-emption.
Which means the Feds think that the Arizona law should NOT be enforced simple because its a Feeral law and that Arizona does not have the right to enforce it.
This is a very weak law suit, based on the fact that this law mirrors Fed law and comes under States rights to protect its citizens. Looks good for Arizona.
Don’t be surprised if you see a rash of legislators start adopting similar laws for their states. Bout time!
ogee commented:
“In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit says. “This authority derives from the United States Constitution” ….
NO IT ISN’T! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
EVERY STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE AND ENACT THEIR OWN LAWS. HE’S PLAYING BOTH SIDES AGAIN. HE IS DESPICABLE. HE PROMISED HER HELP AND GAVE HER A LAWSUIT.
FREAKIN IDIOT DOESN’T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WHICH HE IS DISMANTLING DAILY AND IS TREASONOUS TO. HE NEVER TAUGHT CONTITUTIONAL LAW! HE TAUGHT CLOWARD- PIVENS STRATEGY TO ACORN WORKERS. THAT’S ALL. CHECK THE PIC OF HIM AT THE BLACKBOARD = CLOWARD-PIVENS AND ALINSKY TACTICS ON THE BOARD.
THIS IS A STATE MATTER AND SHE SHOULD COUNTER SUE THE FEDS FOR INTERFERING INTO A STATE MATTERS. STATES HAVE SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS. STATES ARE NOT PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. STATES HAVE RIGHTS MORE THAN THE FED GOV’T. HE’S A SICK BOSTARD. Boot his ugly butt out now!
ogee commented:
Do you support the AZ new illegal alien law?
95.8%
Yes
2,151,797 votes4.2%
No
94,348 votes
ogee commented:
The Mexican Drug cartel is threatening all AZ state officials with death threats under the direction of SOBama…er ah..under the direction of …ah , well, they are trying to seize AZ and Obozo is compliant… yep…he gave them the national forest in AZ… oh he’s cute alright.. his butt stinks and he is mindless. Most Dems hate him and his toothy face!
Hello??? Does anybody see us? Does anybody hear us? Obozo is trying his darndest to incite riots. That alone should be grounds for arrest.
What kind of fn drugs were given to the clown of the Homeland Security what’s her name..napolitano… who was crying about getting help to seal the border when Bush was in office. Not one peep from her now.
AZ under seizure from drug cartel and FL, AL, LA under seizure by foreign corporation’s oil gusher by design.
This pig sitting in the presidents seat has got to go. He’s a pig with lipstick but still a pig.
bill-tb commented:
So no State lawmen is supposed to arrest anybody for a federal crime? How does that work?
Cops roll up to bank robbery in progress. Arrest two. Check for the FDIC logo on the door, hey Pete, it’s a federal bank, so we can’t arrest them…. Turn them loose.
This should be fun, get extra popcorn this next trip to the grocery.
hlj commented:
While the peasants revolt, the King and Queen dine…and get praised for their “values” by the LA Times…
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-restaurants-20100707,0,2497342.story
Rock commented:
All this time I thought we where facing a financial crises. Remember Dems want to slash funds to the Armed forces, lack the resources to stem the contamination of the Gulf Coast, and downgrade NASA to a social outreach program for Islamic nations. So just where is the money coming from, to turn loose a army of ambulance chasers and associated cost, so this regime can prevent a state from protecting its borders and people. Just who’s nation Did Obama swear to protect? Spin it anyway you like, the truth is America borders, and her citizens take a back seat to this man’s quest to manipulate election’s. ACORN, New Black Panthers, SEIU, and now the Hispanic population.
Dmh commented:
Similiarities between Adolf Hitler & Barack Hussein Obama
• Both Hitler and Obama held rallies in outdoor stadiums to excite and inflame the people’s passions. Frequently women would faint or break into tears.
• Both Hitler and Obama wrote ghost-written autobiographies prior to the start of theri run for political office. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle), and Obama wrote Dreams Of My Father. Both men then wrote a second book talking about their goals
for German and America. Hitler wrote A New World Order, and Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope.
• Both Hitler and Obama originally had last names that were changed later in life. Hitler used to be Schickelbruber, and Obama’s last name was Soetoro.
• Both Hitler and Obama hid their real identies. Hiter had a Jewish ancestry, and Obama
a Muslim one. But unlike Hitler, Obama flaunted his Muslim roots in his start as a politician in order to defuse the inevitable firestorm. His ploy of “hiding in plain sight” worked very well.
• Both Hitler and Obama’s supporters followed them blindly, and without question
• Both Hitler and Obama used political power and coercion to conceal and hide their birth certificates from coming to public view. Hitler made his disappear, and Obama is unwilling and unable to produce his long-form birth certificate.
• Both Hitler and Obama advocate using young people as a driving force to create an “army” of youth dedicated to their Ideals. Hitler had his Hitler Youth, and Obama his
Obama Youth Brigade.
• Both Hitler and Obama were known for their tremendous oratorical skills
• Both Hitler and Obama received Messianic comparisons, and both men had songs of adoration written about them and for them.
• Like Hitler, Obama rules in direct disregard to the will and wishes of the people.
• Like Hitler, Obama has an obvious distaste for the Jews, and sides with the Muslims every chance he gets.
• Both Hitler and Obama were able to mezmerize the people even when it was obvious that what they were saying was not true.
• Both Hitler and Obama used domestic terrorists to launch their careers. Hitler had his Brown Shirts from his beer hall days, and Obama had people like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Rashid Khalidi.
• Like Hitler, Obama advocates using murder as a means of population control.
Eriah commented:
Where was the outrage from the Obama Administration when states decided to embrace state sovereignty and make marijuana legal even though there is a federal law against the use of marijuana? Oh, that’s right Obama was too busy telling federal authorities not to uphold federal law:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/20/nation/na-medical-marijuana20
befuddled commented:
shouldn’t arizona be suing the government? they allowed for this mess with their pie in the sky and lax immigration and border security. wasn’t it about a year ago that napolitano got in a huff over canadian border security. and about mexico border security, quiet as a church mouse. all the commies, drug cartels, and union bosses, somehow, seem to weasel their way into obama’s administration. almost seems to be a deliberate plan or a set agenda, but that couldn’t be. the “elite” class keeps telling me that obama is patriotic and wants a prosperous america, if i just shut up, all will be well, just give obama my trust. silly me, that darn skeptic in me is hard to quash. just a few hours everyday of watching katie couric, michael moore, and listening to danny glover and sean penn will fix me up. oh, the soothing relief of reading the daily kos or huffington post or ny times will make all my troubles go away.
Robert commented:
It is telling that the public rationale was about the potential for discrimination, yet the lawsuit is based on federal prerogative.
The Obama administration has used a blatant deception in an attempt to rally public support. The federal government should be asked in court whether the grounds for the lawsuit are potential for discrimination or federal prerogative.
One for the rubes, one for the eggheads.
Chisum commented:
Bwahaha……
The Fury of an Idiot Scorned
http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2010/07/06/the-fury-of-an-idiot-scorned/
Joanne commented:
The U.S. government is taking the State of Arizona to court for enforcing the law because they are saying it is a federal matter and not a state matter. Well, then do something about illegal immigration then. Oh no, the U.S. government isn’t going to do anything, and they aren’t going to let any State do anything either. Gee, this sounds very familiar to what they are doing in the Gulf – the U.S. government did sweet bugger all about preventing the oil from getting on shore, and they have stopped or tried to stop everyone else who has taken the initiative to clean up the oil themselves. This picture is so clear.
24AheadDotCom commented:
In case anyone would like to do something highly effective to support AZ and doesn’t mind spending a few minutes doing some actual work, here are five things you can do:
http://24ahead.com/n/10092
If just a few hundred people did even just one of those we’d be on the way to resolving this matter. At the least, you can send that link to your social networks and encourage them to get involved.
Chisum commented:
Captain KickArse says, “THE BORDER IS SAFE! THE BORDER IS SAFE!”.
Shhh… no one tell Holder or Napolitano: massive arms cache — including rocket launchers, grenades, and M-16s — discovered near Texas border
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/07/shhh-no-one-tell-napolitano-massive.html
Yeppers, another instance where Captain Obvious should kick his own arse.
Bruce MacMahon commented:
Remember when the Obama administration sued the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts and other self-professed “sanctuary cities”, saying it was not the cities’ role to interfere in the enforcement of federal immigration law?
Yeah, me neither.
pm commented:
A frivolous, pathetic lawsuit that’ll further burden taxpayers. BO couldn’t look like a bigger jerk.
If it ends up in the SC, good chance the majority won’t be with him:
Justice Kennedy told friends he plans to hang in there ’til BO is gone.(Drudge). He may be solidly with the conservatives from here on out.
Reminds me to thank George Bush again for giving us Roberts and Alito — who, along with Scalia and Thomas (and now Kennedy?), give me some hope.
denbon commented:
Why don’t we build a welcome center on the border and we let Obama and his administration run it without weapons or any protection. Obama can welcome the illegal aliens in an shake their hands.
Andreas K. commented:
You know how I’ve been talking about partying like in 1773 for a while?
I’m slowly moving away from that.
I think it’ll soon be time to party like in 1789. Madame Guillotine might be leading this dance.
Robert commented:
The State of Arizona should note in court that the federal government is suing against a law that closely mirrors federal law, but does not sue against city laws (“sanctuary” cities) that are in opposition to federal law.
Jesusland commented:
Libs ferociously defend the Federal government’s authority over immigration law if Arizona attempts to enforce those Federal laws, but are considerably less constitutionally-minded when so-called sanctuary cities defy Federal immigration law. No Federal lawsuits from the Democrats in Washington will be forthcoming in cases like that. Funny how that works.
Valerie commented:
I would recommend that the law clerks for the judge split this complaint up, and drink some beers while reading it aloud. You really do need beer googles to see the beauty in this one.
Marissa commented:
If illegal immigration is against the law, why was it not against the law in 1942? The US has a history of exploiting many cultures, including the Mexican culture! I urge all Americans to educate themselves and do some research on the Bracero Program.