By FITSNews || As expected, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is suing Arizona over its new immigration law – invoking the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution in an effort to keep the “controversial” measure from being implemented. The lawsuit was scheduled to be announced Tuesday by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano.
Arizona’s law – passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in April – is set to take effect on July 29, although its future is now in doubt.
Obama has called the Arizona law “misguided,” even though all it does is give state and local law enforcement officers in Arizona the tools they need to enforce existing federal immigration laws. Those laws, incidentally, require legal aliens to carry papers attesting to their immigration status. So, in effect, the federal government is suing Arizona for attempting to uphold federal law.
Nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants currently reside in Arizona, and it’s obvious at this point that the federal government is more focused on creating a “path to citizenship” for them than sending them back home. Seriously, people … that’s a lot of Democratic votes (in a state Obama lost by a 54-45 percent margin).
Specifically, the lawsuit will include statements from multiple government agencies attesting to the fact that the Arizona law would – get this – place an “undue burden” on nationwide enforcement efforts given the sheer number of illegal immigrants that it would uncover.
So in other words, the law (unlike South Carolina’s recently-passed immigration statute) would actually work … meaning that the feds would have to take a break from bailing out bureaucracies or socializing medicine and actually do their jobs for a change.
Obviously, that’s not going to happen …
Arizona isn’t backing down.
“We’ll meet them in court … and we will win,” Gov. Brewer told FOX News last month.
By lance July 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm
What would happen to our unemployment numbers if we repatriated the 30-50 million ILLEGAL INVADERS?
Just askin’…
By yarrrr July 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm
What side is Sheheen on?
By Suggs Mccordy July 6, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Recent study by a group called (FAIR) reports that ILLEGALS cost law-abiding Americans over $113 BILLION each year…
Just think how such money could benefit the poor and underserved law-abiding citizens in America who are living here LEGALLY.
By countryboy July 6, 2010 at 3:55 pm
What’s coming out of the WH is getting more and more like the old saying – “the inmates are running the asylum”.
By Jon July 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm
It’s the fact that if we give the law enforcement this power. They will have the power to harass all people they “think are illegal”. So just because someone is Latino, or maybe looks it. They are going to get harassed, because law enforcement now has the power to ignore the people’s rights who are citizens of the United States. Sure those who are here illegally need to go or somehow get a citizenship. But regardless we should not give law enforcement the power to ignore the rights of those who are here legally, and especially those who are born of the USA and have legal citizenship.
By lars July 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Jon,
Have you read the bill? Law enforcemnt is expressly not given the “power to ignore the rights of those who are here legally”, as you contend.
(Unlike the attorney general and the president, who condemned the bill without reading it, I encourage you to actually read the bill.)
By Jim July 6, 2010 at 7:59 pm
“What would happen to our unemployment numbers if we repatriated the 30-50 million ILLEGAL INVADERS?”
The cost of a large number of products, ranging from food, to carpeting, and including the cost of hotel rooms, poultry, pork, fruits and vegetables, and yard maintenance would go through the roof. Many Americans benefit heavily from the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor. i.e. capitalism.
It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans seem to lack the mental capacity to understand their own alleged economic philosophies. Which leads me to believe, they really do not have an economic philosophy other than “Whats in it for me.” If you are so hot on Republican ideals of free trade and free markets, why not insist on what pure capitalism demands. Open borders. i.e. eliminate the restrictions on the importation of cheap labor.
This list would go nuts if Obama proposed placing high tariffs or dramatic restrictions on the importation of cheap textiles from China or oil from the middle east. You would jump up and down and scream protectionism. Yet you do not even want to stop at tariffs on the importation of cheap labor from Mexico. You want a blockade.
There is no economic difference in what you propose and an order from Obama directing the Navy to intercept all trading vessels from China and escort them back to Chinese ports in an effort to protect the US textile industry. Or placing a $200 a barrel tarriff on Oil from the Middle East as a way to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and encourage the production of domestic resources.
By BC July 6, 2010 at 8:17 pm
The only problem I have with AZ immigration law is that law enforcement officers have not been trained in immigration enforcement. Had AZ actually trained all their law enforcement officers or at least sent some to FLETC for immigration enforcement training to train others, it would probably be a different story. Currently, this equates to telling a file clerk you are now required to run the entire office. Nope, sorry, no additional training is needed…GOOD LUCK!
Here’s the training basics provided by and through the DOJ (Department of Justice).
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2044
By C20H26N2O July 6, 2010 at 8:54 pm
“The cost of a large number of products, ranging from food, to carpeting, and including the cost of hotel rooms, poultry, pork, fruits and vegetables, and yard maintenance would go through the roof. Many Americans benefit heavily from the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor. i.e. capitalism. ”
Through the roof eh? That argument doesn’t fly Jim. Those rates will stay nearly the same since the real citizens, those here on legitimate work visas, and those who came through the proper channels will stay on those jobs without the theat of undercutting. If it shold raise those prices a bit, so be it. The legitimate minority class of Arizona(Americans of Mexican descent) deserve the break.
It’s not always a republican or democretin argument. Sometimes it’s just between smart and stupid.
By the MAN July 6, 2010 at 9:47 pm
I want to show O’negro the path back to Chicago where he can relocate in 2012!
By Jim July 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm
But isn’t my arguement the one the Republicans used when they outsourced millions of American jobs to Asia? So why the sudden change? What do you think has costs more American jobs. Outsourcing all of our manufacturing to China or a few million illegals. I’m perfectly willing to pay more to keep jobs in America. But as an Independent, I think its ok to remind Americans that when Repugnuts are in charge, they are not. They don’t give a crap about American jobs, unless it benefits them; and if it doesn’t they are perfectly willing to sell out this country for cheap goods and money.
By Joe July 6, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“They will have the power to harass all people they “think are illegal”. So just because someone is Latino, or maybe looks it. They are going to get harassed, because law enforcement now has the power to ignore the people’s rights who are citizens of the United States.”
Ughh…is that you, Mr. Attorney General? Or Secretary Napolitano? Mr. President?
Take Lars advice – READ THE BILL.
By Old Bike Dude July 7, 2010 at 5:50 am
Yes it is between smart and stupid and republicans always win at being stupid. Just ask Michael Steele. The Ariz law places all emphasis on the immigrant. Put the emphasis where it needs to be, on the employer. Start locking up, or better yet deporting, a couple dozen employers and watch the results. Just like the drug trade, dry up the demand and the problems start to go away. But like the drug trade, employers are addicted to cheap labor.
btw the Fremont law and others were started by the same grandstanding asshole that brought us the Ariz law.
By Halftime July 7, 2010 at 9:56 am
BC – I am not so sure more training would be required of LEOs if the system were to work like this:
During the commission of a crime or in the investigative process I, as a local LEO, ask an idividual for i.d. and they are unable/unwilling to produce it or the i.d. they produce doesn’t pass muster. My very simple powers of deduction tell me that this person may be here illegally (Note the term ‘illegally’ and its connotation that a crime may have been committed. Remember, crossing the border illegally is a crime.). I would then detain that individual and call the federals and they would actually do their job and come and get said individual. At that point my responsibiity for that person ends. I have adequate training for that.
Problem is, I have a back-log of investigations as long as my arm and don’t really have the time or energy to do the paperwork required and detain this individual until the federals get there (if they get there). And if they ever do get there the chances are slim that they will properly prosecute and deport the illegal. And if they do, he/she will probably be back living in a different trailer and working for another contractor inside of a week. And, yes, the contractor should be charged for employing anyone who cannot be positively identified as a legal citizen or in the country on a legitimate work visa.
Until and unless we FIRST secure our borders, this is all pomp and circumstance and I applaud Arizona for doing what they think is necessary to help do that. If other states will follow suit, maybe the feds will realize that they better get busy doing their jobs or others will do it for them making them irrelevant in the process.
By lars July 7, 2010 at 10:21 am
I suppose if one is an aspiring dictator, one must create a nation of men rather than of laws. This constitional republic was glorious for a spell, but now that we are governed by unscrupulous and unprincipled leaders, it’s becoming more apparent every day that our repulic is on the verge of complete collapse.
By Jim July 7, 2010 at 11:46 am
What don’t you understand about the difficulty of this issue. Its not about civil rights or a Constitutional Republic, its economics. The average American either needs a job or has a family member who needs. They want the illegals out of the country, but the people with money, who can hire lobbyists, benefit from the importation of cheap labor and if that labor is illegal it is even cheaper. This is driving Republican politicians crazy, because they can’t figure out how to get elected and continue to get their corporate bribes.
Its driving Democratic politicians crazy, because they see future citizens as potential Democratic votes, but labor is opposed to bringing competition into the country.
For now, the Democrats appear to be ignoring big labor and towing the free trade line first established by a Republican Congress in the Clinton years with the acquiescence of Clinton, who refused to veto NAFTA, and then subsequently entrenched with the proliferation of Free Trade treaties pushed through by a Republican Congress and George Bush.
There are only two intellectually honest positions in this debate:
Option one – It is reasonable and acceptable for an American Government to take action to protect American jobs, American industry, and the American way of life. That means tariffs and import limits are acceptable tools in the international trade game. I subscribe to that theory. This philosophy was used by Ronald Reagan to force Japanese auto makers to build plants in the US.
Option two – Free Trade is the only way to go. That means tariffs and import limitations are not acceptable tools. But you can’t have it both ways! The importation of cheap goods and the importation of cheap labor are the same thing. They have the same effect on the economy. Both lower the costs of goods to those Americans who can afford them. Free Traders would argue that puts more money in American pockets and that will stimulate our economy. They also argue it will enrich other countries, who will buy goods from us.
Those who subsribe to Option One believe this is nothing more than a race to the bottom. With America giving up jobs and spending the wealth it has accumuated over the last century on items that are consumed (like clothing, food, computers, toys, and OIL) leaving us nothing in the end.
They believe it is accepable for Americans to pay higher prices at the store and the gas pump if it means saving jobs, and keeping industry in this country.
Free Traders would counter that when the end is reached Americans will be willing to work for less money, have a lower life style, go back to small houses, one car per family, 60 hour work weeks, no benefits, etc; but will survive until world wealth equalizes on an economic basis; and everyone is on an even footing at which time America can become competitive again. Of course that assumes China and India are willing to play fair. You Choose!!
My one concession to the Free Traders is that if we opened the borders and allowed companies to ligitimately import cheap labor, we could properly tax the foreigners working in this country and eliminate the drain they create by using services without paying taxes. We could also enforce minimum wage laws, giving Americans an equal shot at the jobs.
By Certified Public Accountant July 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm
The Constitution supposed to restrict the feds, not the states.
By Benito July 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
By Jim July 7, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Certified Public Account, you need to stick to accounting. Of course the Constitution restricts what states can do. If it did not you would have no Constitutional rights.
When a state law enforment person kicks in your door and drags you off to jail, and confiscates your property without cause, do you think you have no rights?
By Joe July 8, 2010 at 2:29 am
“…but the majority is not always right.”
I guess you’re right. 2008 was certainly a great example.
By I Wrote The Trick Book July 8, 2010 at 11:56 am
Dissenters- Ask yourself…Do you get terribly upset if the police ask for your ID? Or whether police are qualified to stop & frisk anyone if they have a suspicion of criminal activity? . . . The AZ law is exactly the same-allowing law enforcement to ask people for something that they are already required to have in their possession.
As for the Constitution, it is, in fact, supposed to LIMIT the federal government’s powers, not to interfere with the States unless the Constitution allows. This law doesn’t appear to actually “conflict” with a Federal law, so it should pass constitutional scrutiny on a preemption claim.
Regardless of the Constitution’s purpose, Obama seems to prefer to disregard it to pass his policies. He has actually stated himself that, in order to pass wealth distribution, he wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will “break free from the essential constraints” (quote) the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution.
This is just one example of Obama’s strong handed intent to pass his ideology in any way possible, all at the expense of the Constitution. Its not an argument of political ideology, it’s an issue of America’s foundation.
By Benito July 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law, that many internet bloggers claim it was copied “Word for Word” from the Federal law, which I frankly do not believe, if it was then no amendments would have been made, right?, of course, keep those lies coming.
As for the undocumented workers, as was attributed to Ronald Reagan “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good you say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when the economy is down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass, the real problem is the narcos, arms and people smugglers and that’s what the focus should be on.
Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Brewer for Governor, she is trying to get elected on the back of undocumented workers, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled. In the last few months Busy Brewer has passed S.B. 1070, no permit conceal weapons law, the famous Birthers law, banning Ethnic studies law, (could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona) and if history is a lesson and if she can read, she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which failed when legally challenged) and the craziest one the boycott of Martin Luther King Day, not wanting another holiday, how crazy is that. I believe there is an undercurrent to their enactment of new laws, they real love following a distinct pattern. Poor Brewer, in an attempt to gain sympathy, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) and we find out her father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955 (watch her play the victim card, again) and then she went to Washington and came back empty as always, poor dear.
By nvrpc July 13, 2010 at 10:41 am
Well people it is time to close ALL points of entry into America for the next 25 years and deport ALL illegals immeditely if not sooner. Go to http://www.americagonestupid.com and then see what else this clown we have in the whitehouse and his socialist followers have in stow for you. Then find the link to http://www.anti-amnestyinternational.org and do your job. Lets take back America from the socialist democratic party and oust everyone of those idiots out of every office across this country today.
By Skippertje July 15, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Hey Benito… All men are created equal! I agree with you one hundred percent. All that this bill is saying is don’t come here ILLEGALLY! They (meaning anyone who is not from our country) can come into our country and work, but they have to have a permit in order to work or live here. I lived in the Netherlands and Belgium for two years. I didn’t even work, but in order to live there, I had to have a residency permit and carry it on me at all times. If I didn’t, I could have been kicked out of the country. Not once was I stopped by police and asked for my identification. They would have asked me for it if I had done something illegal. But I never did and I was there LEGALLY. Plus it helped that I learned the language.
Anyone who has not read the bill, please do. Then we can have an intelligent conversation.
By fuk this July 16, 2010 at 5:29 pm
fuk this this is bullshit everyone should be treated equal so i agree with obama fuk the arizona law i have mexican power all the way!! viva la raza putos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Aaron January 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm
States have the right to enforce their own laws! It doesn’t matter how bad Obama doesn’t like it. If you sue the state of Arizona, you have to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! 500,000 illegals in the state of Arizona? RIDICULOUS! Obama, YOU ARE IGNORANT. You can’t even figure out what you are doing in office, let alone what other states are trying to do! Go fuck yourself. If you are here illegal, you are considered a terrorist! Get the fuck out, or our states will push you out. If Obama thinks he has the power to stop this from happening, he is full of shit.
By Michael LeRoy July 17, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.