(Fox)Facing Federal Lawsuit, Arizona Governor Stands Her Ground on Immigration Law
43 replies, posted
[quote=Fox]Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer refused to flinch after Obama administration officials confirmed Friday that they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the state's anti-illegal immigration law.
In a statement issued late Friday, Brewer called Obama's decision "outrageous" but "not surprising."
"Our federal government should be using its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the law-abiding citizens of Arizona," she said.
Meanwhile, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said his office plans to withdraw as the state's lawyers in legal challenges to the law, leaving Brewer's attorneys to defend it. Brewer had complained that Goddard's criticism of the measure raised doubts about his ability to defend it.
Brewer said with Goddard out, "I will ensure the immigration laws we passed are vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, where this reasonable law will ultimately be found constitutional."
The law takes effect July 29 and requires officers to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that he or she is in the country illegally.
At least five legal challenges have been filed to the law since April.
The lawsuits generally allege that Arizona's law will lead to racial profiling and argue that it's the federal government's responsibility to regulate immigration.
On Friday evening, Brewer's defense team asked a federal judge to throw out the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that challenge the law's constitutionality.
Obama officials confirmed plans to file their lawsuit after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with a TV station in Ecuador earlier this month that the administration would challenge the law in court, though officials had long said the issue was under review.
Administration officials initially would not confirm Clinton's statement. But an official told Fox News on Friday that while the review is still underway, the decision has already been made that a Department of Justice suit will be filed. The administration at this point is just building its case.
Another official said there are still "substantial" issues to address and work out before the Justice Department knows that it has a strong enough case to file a lawsuit. The official said the department intends to file suit, but that any court action is contingent on the final review.
Clinton's announcement was met with outrage Thursday by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law. Brewer told Fox News she's ready for a fight.
"What a disappointment," Brewer told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Thursday, saying she was shocked the administration would make such an announcement on foreign TV without giving Arizona officials the news first.
"We are not going to back away from this issue," Brewer said. "We are going to pursue it, we're going to be very aggressive," Brewer said. "We'll meet them in court ... And we will win."
She added: "The population of America agrees with Arizona." [/quote]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/19/facing-federal-lawsuit-arizona-governor-stands-ground-immigration-law/[/url]
Who didn't see this coming?
*Awaits the Fox hunters.*
Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see how this shakes out.
another quality glaber thread
State's rights arguments are sooo 1850's...
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;22730659]another quality glaber thread[/QUOTE]
Maybe cause it is? The usual people who don't like his threads haven't jumped out to go STFU glaber lul
[QUOTE=Zambies!;22730729]Maybe cause it is? The usual people who don't like his threads haven't jumped out to go STFU glaber lul[/QUOTE]
It's only less retarded than normal.
those damn illegal immigrants arrhh
[quote]She added: "The population of America agrees with Arizona."[/quote]
yeah, tyranny of the majority. no problems there.
how did she get elec- oh wait, it's Arizona.
If our immigration laws didn't suck, I would support stricter illegal-immigration laws and defenses.
It's a restatement of federal law, [I]word-for-word.[/I] Why the lawsuit, Obama?
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22731035]It's a restatement of federal law, [I]word-for-word.[/I] Why the lawsuit, Obama?[/QUOTE]
proof?
and read this:
[quote]What is the difference between this law and the federal law?
The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law. This law reverses the presumption of innocence, forcing police officers on the street to demand that people prove they are U.S. citizens or otherwise in the country legally. The racial profiling this law invites with its undefined standard for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and federal civil rights protections.
There are a number of ways in which the Arizona law directly conflicts with federal law regarding the regulation and enforcement of immigration. As a threshold matter, SB 1070 presumes that the citizenship or immigration status of individuals can be determined simply, outside the complex administrative procedures set up under our nation’s immigration laws. It cannot. Moreover, the Arizona law would also impose different state penalties against people for conduct, such as authorization to work in the United States that is directly regulated under federal law. Not only is this unconstitutional under the supremacy cause, but it is also bad policy as the United States cannot have a patchwork of conflicting immigration laws depending on what state you happen to find yourself in.[/quote]
[url]http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/az_FAQ_20100517.pdf[/url]
The new law basically says all foreign looking people are guilty until proven innocent.
[QUOTE=Glaber;22730585]*Awaits the Fox hunters.*[/QUOTE]
Oh I [I]like[/I] this.
[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;22731225]The new law basically says all foreign looking people are guilty until proven innocent.[/QUOTE]
You do know they can't just stop you 'because they think you might be illegal'. It's a secondary offense.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22731341]You do know they can't just stop you 'because they think you might be illegal'. It's a secondary offense.[/QUOTE]
and how do they know if you're an illegal?
if you're brown?
If they were heading in the direction to pass it in the first place, what would make anyone think she [I]wouldn't[/I] stand her ground?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22731534]If they were heading in the direction to pass it in the first place, what would make anyone think she [I]wouldn't[/I] stand her ground?[/QUOTE]
who said or implied that they didn't think she would
this is just Fox's sensational title.. she's standing her ground and not giving in to Obama!!
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;22731413]and how do they know if you're an illegal?
if you're brown?[/QUOTE]
ID maybe?
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22731035]It's a restatement of federal law, [I]word-for-word.[/I] Why the lawsuit, Obama?[/QUOTE]
It's not
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;22733686]ID maybe?[/QUOTE]
uh, and what would make them suspect you of being an illegal
Stop making these stupid political news stories. It's hardly news when it's political show.
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;22733964]uh, and what would make them suspect you of being an illegal[/QUOTE]
Touche
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22731341]You do know they can't just stop you 'because they think you might be illegal'. It's a secondary offense.[/QUOTE]
you do know Arizona uses very ambiguous language like "lawful contact"
Because America itself has nothing to do with immigration ever :downs:
God this is ridiciulous, I honestly don't see an issue with this law.
lol Glaber thinks Fox is a credible news station
[QUOTE=Pr0vologne;22735175]God this is ridiciulous, I honestly don't see an issue with this law.[/QUOTE]
except all the issues raised above that make this law entirely ridiculous.
or did you miss them
[QUOTE=Pr0vologne;22735175]God this is ridiciulous, I honestly don't see an issue with this law.[/QUOTE]
That's because you're white
I propose a good ol' fashioned thread-read.
[QUOTE=The golden;22739009]You might aswell just say you support police-enforced racism.[/QUOTE]Mind you that's not entirely true.
[quote]The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization.[/quote]
According to the ACLU, it's giving the police the ability to make judgment calls on whether or not the person is a citizen, which [B]can[/B] lead to action on the basis of racism (and giving that ability to someone in a stereotypically racist state such as Arizona [U]is retarded[/U]), but it's cleverly worded (read: AMBIGUOUS AS HELL) so as to not directly support racism.
I believe it would be more proper to say that it's police enforced nationalism (but I can't quite pinpoint a concise definition of nationalism so if anyone wants to correct me here feel free).
[editline]13:37[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;22739447]Police Enforced Regionalism
[editline]06:20PM[/editline]
that would be better[/QUOTE]
This could work.
Police Enforced Regionalism
[editline]06:20PM[/editline]
that would be better
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.