Feds to file lawsuit against Arizona immigration law
The Obama Administration sued Arizona to block the state’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration, setting the stage for a constitutional clash between the federal government and the border state.
Arguing that the law usurps federal authority, the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal court to invalidate Arizona’s requirement that state and local police question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops. The lawsuit requests an immediate injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law while the case is decided.
Tuesday’s lawsuit has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.
Arizona lawmakers passed the measure after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
President Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their “a patchwork” of immigration enforcement laws.
The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he’s not surprised by the Justice Department’s challenge but noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
“The issue was already teed up in the courts. There’s no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn’t add anything by bringing their own lawsuit,” Kobach said in an interview.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top43 Comments to “Feds to file lawsuit against Arizona immigration law”
President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided.
——
Why? because Obama and his people need the money these groups have for Nov election.
Report comment to moderator
With the lax voting practices in many places, some of these illegals are quite possibly already voting illegally. The lawsuit is another example of the partisian divisiveness of this President. He has squandered every opportunity to bring the country together, in favor of causing further division.
Report comment to moderator
“Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.”
Well. It IS.
You got these stupid politicians up there that do nothing but sit on their hands and spend money…
Heck, maybe we ought ship all our congressmen and this administration out to guard the borders all day long. Perhaps something would get done….
Report comment to moderator
Right. The President has failed to protect our border and ARIZONA is misguided????
The duty of border protection belongs to neither the legislative nor the judiciary, but to the executive branch of government.
Mr. “Yes We Can” isn’t doing his job.
Report comment to moderator
Maywood, California is broke. The city council fired all city employees but the city council.
From a Human Events story. Maywood welcomed all aliens, leagaland illegal. They hired a corrupt police force and provided all sorts of benefits. The last paragraph of a long article reads:
“Maywood is the warning of what happens when illegal immigrants, resisting assimilation as Americans, bring with their growing numbers the corruption and radical politics of their home countries. Add the radical home-grown anti-Americanism of Hispanic “leaders” and groups like La Raza and you get schools where learning is replaced by indoctrination, business and jobs replaced by welfare and gangs, and a poisonous stew of entitlement politics. In too many American communities, this sad tale is becoming all too familiar.
Report comment to moderator
With the border pretty much controlled except for the Tucson sector in Arizona, almost all of the eligal activity has been funneled into Arizona. Part of the Buenos Aires is closed to Americans (including to a large degree the Border Patrol, since they have to use horses) because of safety issues because of Mexican cartel activity (they drive.) The desert is trashed for 80 miles into Arizona because of Illegal immigrants. (The drug areas are cleaner because, I hear, they shoot illegal immigrants – they don’t want the trash to bring attention to their corridors.) And libs wonder why Arizona is upset.
And the federal reaction is to help us – right.
Like Ronald Regan Said:
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ”
Report comment to moderator
My initial reaction to this law was that it would be hard to implement without profiling. Then I learned that the law wouldn’t have passed if the amendment that passed a week later was not well on its way through the legislature. I understand that the amendment is what made the law much better by requiring that the confronting of legal status had to be in conjunction with a stop for another reason and also provided penalties to officers that profiled – in addition to the normal penalties that any other state’s officers have if they profile. (It seems to me that profiling is now less likely in Arizona than in other states.)
But what we really want is for the Feds to do their job and control the Border in Arizona too.
Report comment to moderator
Fuzzyface – Obama will not control the border, he does not want to up set Mexico and those special interst groups that are against controling our borders.
Report comment to moderator
There is big money involved here and Obama is looking to collect money for himself and his people.
Report comment to moderator
Fuzzy, they haven’t come, so they aren’t planning to help.
I would love to be the lawyer who asks the feds why they let Americans be murdered.
Report comment to moderator
BIG BUSINESS wants an open border so they can hire Mexicans cheaply. They have been meeting about this and aren’t happy about it. It’s been in the newspaper here.
Report comment to moderator
BORDER GUARD
One guy IN THE NEWS suggested that we should have a permanent military Border Guard for detecting and preventing incursion. We have the Coast Guard watching the waterways, why don’t we have someone watching the other coasts.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not Big Business, Mrs. News–it’s all my neighbors and their friends who want cheap child care, cheap yard workers, cheap food–it’s you and me. Big Business has to provide 1099s and needs to know SSNs–Walmart was busted and fined big time when they hired illegal workers, as was Purdue Farms. Your anti-business attitude is troublesome and masks some of the responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
This is a law against ILLEGAL immigrants.
“There can be no reward for people who have begun their residency with a criminal act.” R. Pinkowski
Report comment to moderator
The Chamber does oppose Arizona’s law. They want comprehensive reform, which is just another word for amnesty. I don’t support that. If prices go up because we decide to finally enforce our laws, then so be it. But illegals are taking over 2 million jobs right now, and I think we can find Americans to do most of those–particularly as unemployment begins to run out.
“The Chamber supports comprehensive immigration reform. What we oppose is a patchwork of state and local laws requiring employers to use a broken system that Congress said must be voluntary,” said Conrad. “Federal law prohibits states and municipalities from overriding Congress’ judgment that E-Verify be mandatory.”
http://library.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/july/us-chamber-asks-high-court-review-constitutionality-arizona-immigration-law
Report comment to moderator
MICHELLE 13
How am I anti-business? Because I don’t think they should hire illegals? Or because I don’t think they should keep the border open?
We’ve ALL had to show our SS numbers at work. When a SS number comes up with the wrong name there should be a red flag.
You and I and the neighbors can’t get Obama to do anything, but Big Business can. Big Business does hire illegals. They get a slap on the wrist, a small fine, the illegals get temporary green cards and are back on the job. It doesn’t happen everywhere, but it is happening.
NOT ALL the businesses that hire illegals are in Arizona. One business was temporarily shut down and then they let the illegals go back to work while they discussed a small fine that the company would have to pay. (The fine was less than $5,000.)
WalMart is not the Big Business that I was talking about. Rich people love to hate them. (Remember Obama is rich.) They work hard at keeping them out of their neighborhoods.
Obama and HIS people do NOT treat all companies the same. He has shown us that. Just read the news. He is good at pointing a finger at where he wants you to look.
I purposely look for MADE in the USA on stuff in the stores. All the stores hire people. When a business in the US is boycotted, AMERICANS suffer.
The GOV’T has known about ILLEGALS using illegal Social Security numbers for A LONG TIME. How do I know? Because our church has illegals trying to get jobs and they have to talk to the gov’t about these people and their numerous social security numbers. Isn’t that ID THEFT? Does the GOV’T do anything about it? NO. Why?
Is ID theft ok? Not for me thanks.
If a small church can find out the correct information about someone’s social security number, surely a big business can.
Report comment to moderator
#12
BORDER GUARD?? We have one already; it’s called “Border Patrol”.
Remember the two Border Patrol members tried in court and imprisoned for shooting and wounding a drug dealer?
Report comment to moderator
MRS.NEWS2ME,
You allege that “Big Business does hire illegals. They get a slap on the wrist, a small fine, the illegals get temporary green cards and are back on the job.”
Which big businesses? McDonald’s? GM? Microsoft?
Report comment to moderator
The people of Arizona are trying to DO SOMETHING about a real situation in their lives. Leave it to inept, bankrupt, federal bureaucrats to get in the way. Some of those jobs that supposedly “nobody wants” used to be good summer and part time jobs for our kids (kids of U.S. Citizens). Now that the global crooks have emptied the til, some Moms and Dads need some of those jobs.
Report comment to moderator
And if the feds win their suit, how, pray tell, do they plan to enforce their wishes? Invasion?
Report comment to moderator
John Denney @#4: Right. The President has failed to protect our border and ARIZONA is misguided????
Perhaps Arizona should counter-sue for breach of contract since it is the federal government’s job to protect the borders, and it has been woefully negligent in its duties.
Report comment to moderator
“But illegals are taking over 2 million jobs right now, and I think we can find Americans to do most of those–particularly as unemployment begins to run out.”
I don’t understand why we don’t solve two problems at once.
Deport illegal aliens, and solve unemployment at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
Pat Riot says:
‘Some of those jobs that supposedly “nobody wants” used to be good summer and part time jobs for our kids (kids of U.S. Citizens).’
Hiring kids is almost impossible any more because of our child labor laws. As a farmer, I can hire my children fairly easily, and to a very limited extent I can hire our workers children. But it is almost impossible to hire other children because there is nothing I can have them do and the restrictions are so cumbersome. This is not due to illegal immigrants.
Report comment to moderator
Obama continues his pattern of siding with the parasites in our society. It’s no longer even shocking that he sides with the radicals and troublemakers. From Bill Ayers, to La Raza, to his pals in the New Black Panthers, he’ll go to great lengths to enable them. It’s funny that he’ll sue to overturn something that citizens voted for, yet drops a case that’s already been won to placate another of his radical supporters. His loyalties lie with the worst among us. Don’t believe me? Well here’s a lovely video of the guy he let off the hook. He was guilty of voter intimidation, but instead walks among civilized society spewing his garbage. All thanks to Obama and his lackey Holder.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/06/video-the-nice-young-man-eric-holder-left-off-the-hook/
Report comment to moderator
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/
“FAIR’s report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.””
“The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.
Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.”
Having those 3 million jobs back for Americans would be nice too. And if there are 3 mill workin, and 15 mill in the country illegally, are the other 12 mill just sucking up public assistance?
Report comment to moderator
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1972 case called Kleindeinst v. Mandel that the federal government, and NOT the states, has the power to set and enforce the laws on admitting immigrants into the country.
There are good reasons for this. For one, the issue is admittance into the country, not any individual state. That alone demands federal, not state, jurisdiction.
Secondly, imagine the chaos if each state got to set its own rules, resulting a patchwork quilt of laws.
Third, the reason local police shouldn’t be involved in enforcing immigration laws is that you don’t want people afraid to dial 911 to report a crime because they’re afraid it’ll lead to their grandfather getting deported. That’s not the role of the local police.
Illegal immigration is a real and significant problem, but this law thwarts the Constitution and the rule of law; and it’s sadly amusing how the same conservatives who are first in line to posture about “activist judges” and the Constitution will two-facedly take the exact opposite position on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
What is fascinating is that the leftists on the Supreme Court just argued in favor of states being more restrictive than the Federal government in the Chicago gun law case.
But in this case, where Arizona makes a law that mirrors and does not violate or restrict Federal law, the left wants to argue the other way.
Quiz Question: When is it a violation of Federal law to uphold Federal law? When the Feds don’t want to enforce the law. So they’ll sue anyone who tries.
Report comment to moderator
CONANTHELIBRARIAN (26): The Supreme Court ruled in a 1972 case called Kleindeinst v. Mandel that the federal government, and NOT the states, has the power to set and enforce the laws on admitting immigrants into the country [my bold - FiS].
Frank: The AZ law has nothing to do with “the laws on admitting immigrants into the country.”
It has to do with a) trying to determine which immigrants entered illegally (i.e., contrary to federal immigration law); and b) taking steps to remedy the fact that they are here illegally.
Report comment to moderator
I think the law is far more sane than most immigration muck. That may not be saying much.
How did “regulate the border” get to be the conservative position, anyway? It seems counter-intuitive. I don’t like it. And just what is the liberal position, anyway?
And why must I, a conservative, buy completely into the accepted (for whatever reason) conservative viewpoint on every issue? And why must I think that there must only be two polar answers to every question that are color coded? (for my convenience, of course, wouldn’t want to think to much, just pick red or blue. Soon, with the historic Crayola deal, we’ll be able to vote by picking crayons.)
Report comment to moderator
Frank: Which is not Constitutionally permitted. Can you think of any other instance where a state’s local and state police get involved in federal crimes?
Report comment to moderator
Drug crimes may involve state, local and federal agencies. Illegal drugs are a problem for all of these entities, and they work together to solve the problem, don’t they?
Report comment to moderator
Xion said:
This is why TJS perceives a difference between conservative and liberal positions on securing the border: the right is shameless about playing on the conservative distrust of government to imply that the federal government doesn’t want to enforce the law.
It is a ludicrous position that a moment’s examination will dispel, but that doesn’t stop people from trying to perpetuate it.
This page at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Web site will give you an idea of just what the federal government is doing to enforce the laws.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Yes, but that’s because “drug crimes” encompass a wide universe of things. Importing drugs into the country, simple possession, selling drugs, growing or making drugs domestically, etc. If somebody’s making crystal meth in Kansas City, there’s probably no federal role. On the other hand, if somebody’s smuggling cocaine across the border, there is.
Illegal entry of immigrants is only one thing, and it’s a federal thing.
Report comment to moderator
Crime that occurs within a state, whatever else it may be, is a state issue. And a deadly one:
Report comment to moderator
Conan, as all liberals, misses the point of the AZ law and I doubt he has read it.
Article 8 of AZ S. 1070 reads in 11-1051 “Cooperation and assistance in immigration laws…….no official or agency of this state or a county or a city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”
11-1051 B lists the documents necessary to show you are here legally.
Basically what the AZ law does is REPEAT what the federal law is SUPPOSED to be doing but isn’t.
So please explain to me (after you read the whole AZ law, should be easy even for liberals as it is only 18 pages) just what is unconstitutional about AZ wanting to enforce what the federal government won’t.
Report comment to moderator
Eh, Conan, are you also concerned about city counsels like those of Los Angeles and San Francisco voting to become “sanctuary cities”, in which law enforcement officers cannot ask the immigration status of a criminal, which goes against federal law? (It is my understanding that a local police officer must report illegal aliens to immigration officials.) Where are your diatribes on that issue?
Report comment to moderator
Conan says,
“This is why TJS perceives a difference between conservative and liberal positions on securing the border: the right is shameless about playing on the conservative distrust of government to imply that the federal government doesn’t want to enforce the law.”
You’re right about one thing, it’s easy to dispel this little myth of yours. The conservative position wants more guards and troops on the border to stop this madness. The liberal position is to put up a sign and declare everything fine. This is the liberals idea of border enforcement, ignore it.
These signs are 80 miles into Arizona from the border and 30 miles from their capitol. They’re warning people to stay away because it’s dangerous. It’s time to take down the signs and put troops on patrol in the area. This is American land. It’s time to reclaim it from Mexico.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/25/new-jan-brewer-ad-heres-what-obama-means-by-border-security/
” An extremely popular Arizona immigration law, soon to be challenged by the federal government; freaky deaky reports of parts of the state turning into no man’s land thanks to weak border enforcement; and of course a broken promise by The One to send at least token reinforcements to help out.”
And then check out this link to get an idea of the clown Obama put in charge of coordinating state and federal immigration enforcement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice/
“The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue.”
“But as a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies, by which illegal immigrants who don’t commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don’t check for immigration papers.
He also, during his tenure as Houston police chief, criticized ICE’s key program that draws on local law enforcement’s support.
“There’s no way you can head up an office if you don’t believe in what the office is supposed to do,” Curtis Collier of U.S. Border Watch, told the Houston Chronicle. “Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s primary mission is to protect the American people. If this guy believes any of these programs should not be enforced, he’s certainly going to be a very weak advocate for them.”
Obama and libs continue to enable this disaster.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 07.07.10 AT 12:23 AM
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1972 case called Kleindeinst v. Mandel that the federal government, and NOT the states, has the power to set and enforce the laws on admitting immigrants into the country.
–
An when the Fed do not do their jobs. an the result of this failure is creating a war zone with in side of a State, what should the State do?
Report comment to moderator
Peter L – sanctuary cities also tell their people not to help Feds in inforcing the Fed Laws
Report comment to moderator
The liberal position on illegal immigration is quite clear……let them in and give them a Democratic voter registration card.
Report comment to moderator
Conan:
Law enforcement personnel are required to enforce all laws, municipal, state, and federal within their jurisdiction. Sometimes jurisdiction is geographical, sometimes it does relate to the specific nature of the offense. If the jurisdiction of the offense were specific to federal law, such as counterfeiting or threatening the President, local law enforcement would still lend resources and manpower to assist the Secret Service in investigation and arrests. Bank robberies and kidnapping, because banks are federally insured and because of the possibililty of interstate transport of kidnap vicitms, are federal crimes investigated by the FBI, but remain prosecutable as state crimes.
The Arizona bill requires state law enforcement officers to assist the ICE with identifying and holding illegal immigrants encountered during other aw enforcement activity. Unlike California’s law, AZ specifically precludes racial profiling as a reason for investigating immigration status. Many other states have similar laws on their books already, and actively and aggressively pursue illegal immigrants. The AZ bill in no way offers a “patchwork” of differing laws but is tailored toward assisting ICE in its mandated resposibility.
Many local communities have designated themselves “sanctuaries” where illegal immigrants will be protected from the prosecution. This is explicitly and obviously a local jurisdiction thwarting the federal law and misappropriating the fedral government’s prerogative to set immigration policy. The DOJ should be suing Berkely, CA, not Arizona.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I wouldnt have a problem with temporary amnesty, so long as you secure the border first.
Temporary, by means of allowing all current illegals to have 60 days to report, offer a temporary work status (6 months, 1 yr, 2 yrs, whatever), and the option to reapply.
Failure to comply after the 60 days, or failure to renew, then deport. It will be difficult to remove 12 million plus illegals.
But in any case, amnesty of any sort, without securing the border, is like refilling your car oil without fixing the leak…
Fix both problems. I’m crossing my fingres AZ will succede from the union…
Report comment to moderator
I’m crossing my fingres AZ will succede from the union…
Do you mean “secede”, which means “separate itself”? “Succede” looks like a misspelling of “succeed”. I hope Arizona succeeds, whether it secedes or not.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!