US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100706/pl_afp/usimmigrationpoliticsarizona_20100706202001/print

US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US government on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Arizona for a controversial immigration law which has been sharply criticized by America's neighbors and by the US administration.

A Justice Department statement said it was challenging the new state law in the courts because it hampered the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy.

It also placed significant "burdens" on federal agencies and law enforcement, the department argued.
Federal laws do not permit the development of a "patchwork of state and local immigration policies," it said.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," US Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.

Arizona, the Justice Department said, "crossed a constitutional line."

The Arizona law, due to take effect on July 29, makes it a crime to be in the state, which borders Mexico, without proper immigration papers and requires local police, who are not federal agents responsible for immigration matters, to determine if people are in the country legally.

US officials said they took the action after consulting with various law enforcement departments, chiefs of police, civil rights groups and other local officials.

Many said they were concerned the law would make victims of crimes or witnesses "less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement" if they did not possess proper legal papers.

Officials in Arizona argue they have been overrun by illegal immigrants leading to a spike in the crime rate and straining state resources. They say the measure was necessary only because of lax federal government enforcement of the southern US border.

"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Holder said.

However, he added, "diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety."

Meanwhile, Arizona's two US senators issued a joint statement slamming the lawsuit.

"The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law," Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement.

More than 60 percent of the US population supports Arizona's new immigration law, according to a recent opinion survey.

About 30 percent of Arizona's population of 6.6 million are Hispanic, one third of whom are foreign born, including 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in the statement that her staff was "actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of which (Arizona's) is one."

Obama on July 1 renewed his called for Republicans to back immigration reform to bring 11 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows, but his political foes quickly accused him of "political pandering" four months ahead of key legislative elections.

 

Slam dunk win for the government here. The AZ law clearly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th.

 

The 14th covers non-citizens too.

 

It would help with those voters if he did more to guard the border, I guess.

The bottom line, though, is you can't send 13M or more people to Mexico forcibly (that's actually an international crime against humanity) and it really doesn't matter what the people want if it's wrong.

I think the AZ law violates the 4th, 5th, 14th, and Article I Section 8 (no bill of attainer)

 

Per the constitution, Persons are entitled to a speedy trial, search by warrant specifying the specific place to be searched, due process, jury of one's peers, and right to face one's accuser. I'm probably missing a few others.

 

I'm not saying this law sends 13M people back to mexico, but that they do need to be dealt with. It is against the Geneva Conventions (the 4th convention to be precise) to force civilians out of the country. Geez, 13M people forced to migrate would be one of the greatest horrors in the history of humanity. You brought up "what is popular with the masses" and I hear people say all the time we should send them back to Mexico.

I live in San Diego, not far from the border.

 

Not to be callous...how do you get sending illegal border-crossers back to their homeland into a Trail of Tears situation? And why do they have to be sent "home"? Why can't they start the immigration process, like every other person trying to come into the US? Are you saying that Federal Law and Statutes make it difficult for people to enter the country? Who's the executor of the Federal Law?

 

I'm saying they're here, and we're stuck with that fact.

A forced migration (so-called sending them back to their country) of 13M people would set a modern record (certainly since 1900, probably since the dark ages).

 

The constitution says, "congress shall pass no bill of attainder, nor an ex post facto law."

A bill of attainder is "an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and punishing them" (per wikipedia).

 

I think he's quoting the Washington Post article, but there's a bit more to it than the supremacy argument:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit

The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.

 

I agree with your political assessment here. However, it really would be refreshing to see a guy get elected and do the right thing - reelection be damned. Even if it's not popular.

From my POV, "democracy" is not all it's cracked up to be. It'd be tyranny of the majority. The majority in a true democracy could vote to make certain classes of people slaves. (This is just an example of how a majority could be tyrannical).