Thread: White House taking AZ to court over immigration law

Pre-emption is bogus. The laws are the same. If they were different, then the Federal law would pre-empt the state or local law.

The concept of pre-emption doesn't apply to enforcement.

Yes I realize that the fact that the law exists does not mean it will be enforced. That's my issue, is the reason behind the fed's refusal to fully enforce the law they insist only they have the authority to enforce.

After all this time THIS is all they could come up with?

Geeesh...

President ONero fiddles around with healthcare and amnesty while the lives of American workers go up in flames.

With a significant majority of American citizens in favor of enforcing existing immigration law, I can't imagine that he would survive amnesty unsinged.

To me, he's already toast in 2012.

Hopefully he can be stopped by the firefighters we can add to Congress this year .. before he lays scorched waste to the entire country.

Originally Posted by Richyrich03867

The Justice Department is suing the state of AZ over their tough new immigration law. I think it's funnier than hell that the basis of the lawsuit is jurisdictional, that the AZ law illegally pre-empts federal law.

The White House's bitch is that they alone have the constitutional authority to regulate immigration. They just refuse to do it in this particular case.

I keep hearing the reason that the White House refuses to enforce the federal laws on the books in AZ is that they want to use thie problem as leverage in their greater plan for immigration reform.

I predict this stance will sink Obama's chances for reelection. There's no way he can get the amnesty for illegals through congress in time to have these people voting for him in 2012. What it will do in time is piss off a lot more people that might have otherwise voted for him in 2012.

I've been talking to some folks and there is a (mostly) tongue in cheek sentiment that if Holder wins this gig that AZ cops should stop "interfering" with bank robberies and kidnappings.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Hopefully he can be stopped by the firefighters we can add to Congress this year .. before he lays scorched waste to the entire country.

People throwing smaller Molotov Coctails onto a fire aren't really "fighting the fire" you know ....

Just a little FYI stuff....like the actual complaint and the text of the bill and such -

USA v. AZ (Injunction Brief)

USA v. AZ (Complaint)

AZ SB 1070

AZ HB 2162 (amendment to SB 1070)

These pieces of legislation are not too bad of a read and should be an important part of arguments on both sides of the issue.

After a quick perusal of the complaint it looks (to me) like the DOJ is really reaching here. They seem to be banking on the court making a decision based on emotional appeal rather than a strong statutory basis or judicial precedent.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

People throwing smaller Molotov Coctails onto a fire aren't really "fighting the fire" you know ....

Exactly .. which is why we need to eschew arsonists both left and right.

It's the moderate majority, American moms and dads whose jobs, homes and children's futures are going up in smoke.

They are the ones who'll be standing ready at the station in November to douse ONero's pyre.

Hopefully they will be given some true forest rangers to lead them forward .. not more pyromaniacs in Smokey the Pander Bear's fur.

(Okay, I got carried away by the metaphor. )

Originally Posted by tsquare

After all this time THIS is all they could come up with?

Geeesh...

Yeah, the bloviating about civil rights and racial discrimination is conspicuous by its absence in this lawsuit.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Just a little FYI stuff....like the actual complaint and the text of the bill and such -

USA v. AZ (Injunction BriefComplaint)

USA v. AZ (ComplaintInjunction)

AZ SB 1070

AZ HB 2162 (amendment to SB 1070)

These pieces of legislation are not too bad of a read and should be an important part of arguments on both sides of the issue.

After a quick perusal of the complaint it looks (to me) like the DOJ is really reaching here. They seem to be banking on the court making a decision based on emotional appeal rather than a strong statutory basis or judicial precedent.

FYI, the labels are backwards for the injunction brief and the actual complaint.

Originally Posted by Richyrich03867

The Justice Department is suing the state of AZ over their tough new immigration law. I think it's funnier than hell that the basis of the lawsuit is jurisdictional, that the AZ law illegally pre-empts federal law.

IMO, that's pretty much the only main reason many of the provisions of the AZ law are invalid. IMO, it's filled with due process and jurisdictional violations and preemption issues. Immigration issues are a federal issue and thus trigger preemption and jurisdictional concerns. Many portions of the AZ law also trigger due process violations IMO because deeming someone to be an 'illegal immigrant' is a legal conclusion. That conclusion is reached in ICE immigration courts after affording the alleged illegal immigrant the opportunity of a hearing on the claims consistent with due process. The AZ law in relevant portions attempts to either assume the legal conclusion or use a defective shortcut to claim such a conclusion and does so without jurisdiction to do so.

Originally Posted by Richyrich03867

The White House's bitch is that they alone have the constitutional authority to regulate immigration. They just refuse to do it in this particular case.

I keep hearing the reason that the White House refuses to enforce the federal laws on the books in AZ is that they want to use thie problem as leverage in their greater plan for immigration reform.

They are actually doing more than I originally thought. However, it's still deficient IMO and your stated reason is a big part of it.

If Obama delivers the enforcement side that's demanded by the GOP side, but does not deliver on his promises to the Latino and immigration reform segments who voted for him with the expectation that part of his overall reform would be offering a pathway to legalisation for those already here along with a much improved manner of legal immigration, he'll lose all the leverage with the GOP to honour that promise because they got what they wanted but didn't have to 'give to get.'

The GOP and its base predominately only want enforcement, including no mercy for those already here. They also will not reward Obama and the Dems for doing that and will simply move on to attack them on other issues and vote against them as usual. So, if Obama and the Dems do just that, all it really does is alienate Obama and the Dem's base given they will be deemed to have betrayed their promises as mentioned to those who voted for them in whole or in part based upon those promises.

Therefore, that's the barganining chip...i.e., "I'll give you want you want (future border enforcement and crackdowns going forward) if you give us a pathway for those already here with better terms for legal entry because that's what many in our base want.

Originally Posted by Richyrich03867

I predict this stance will sink Obama's chances for reelection. There's no way he can get the amnesty for illegals through congress in time to have these people voting for him in 2012. What it will do in time is piss off a lot more people that might have otherwise voted for him in 2012.

The illegals who might get a pathway wouldn't be able to vote for several electoral cycles given the pathway to naturalised citizenship under normal circumstances, which I suspect any pathway for illegals will have even more hampering conditions to get to that status.

If he doesn't bring it up before the election, IMO he and the Dems will do much worse. All the voters who voted for them who supported the kinds of reforms I mentioned that they promised them want a delivery. If they can't deliver, they want to see that they genuinely tried. There's a fundamental difference between 'couldn't' and 'didn't.' If the Dems bring the debate to Congress and the GOP blocks it, then those voters who voted for the Dems--especially the Latinos--with that promise in mind will note that accordingly for the election and for the future as to who they will throw their support. If the Dems don't raise it, then they'll get blamed for promising something to those voters in 2008 that they didn't take seriously enough and/or too fatalistically to even bother trying, and if that's how serious they take it, then the voters will take them as seriously in kind in lack of interest and belief.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The illegals who might get a pathway wouldn't be able to vote for several electoral cycles given the pathway to naturalised citizenship under normal circumstances, which I suspect any pathway for illegals will have even more hampering conditions to get to that status.

There's no guarantee of that.

Originally Posted by Revere

There's no guarantee of that.

For all practical considerations, it's guaranteed. It takes 5 years at a minimum for a green card holder--not just any visa holder--to apply for naturalisation and that process takes time, and that's if they possess the green card in the first place. No platform ever suggested that not only would some pathway to legalisation be offered but that they'll also be given the wondrous bonus of being able to jump right to naturalisation, and even if someone did suggest that, it would never get any support, and certainly not enough to pass Congress or get signed into law by the POTUS. Simply put, nobody supports that in any sense worth considering as a possibility.