Feds sue state of Arizona

[dragon]

Was wondering if the feds were going to go through with it

PHOENIX — The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.

The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops usurps federal authority.

The government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, although the punishment and enforcement tactics of the Arizona are much more severe.

Tuesday's action 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.

Prior to seeing the lawsuit or receiving any official notification, Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the reported decision to sue "a terribly bad decision."

"Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

"This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand," Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick said in a statement Tuesday. "A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system."

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 passed the law 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.

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 own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

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.

Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure.

"It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.

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 called it "unprecedented and unnecessary."

He 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.

Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan. contributed to this report.

link

[Oscar Wilde]

Let's just hope they repeal it and replace it with their own measure. This law is basically them trying (and failing so hard I think it broke the sound barrier) to fix what does seem like a problem. If the Federal Government can take away from this the initiative to fix legal immigration, awesome. If not, then the problem still exists and Arizona is gonna keep this shit up. (Of course they could if the problem was legitimately fixed because "YOU DIDN'T FIX IT RIGHT")

[Coyote]

This is what I was thinking, though... I've heard that up to 22 more states are thinking about implementing Arizona-style immigration laws. Meaning that if these measures pass, people across the nation will have to carry with them some form of proof that they are legally-born citizens.

Now, no one really wants to carry around an actual copy of their birth certificate everywhere they go. The most obvious answer to this is... a national ID system.

But I guess the Teabaggers don't see that coming, do they?

[SirNitram]

Legal immigration? Don't be stupid. That isn't allowed here, unless you are immediate family of someone here. Oh, and unless your wealthy or a supra-genius in your field.

[Themightytom]

Legal immigration? Don't be stupid. That isn't allowed here, unless you are immediate family of someone here. Oh, and unless your wealthy or a supra-genius in your field.

Riiight let me know when THAT becomes permissible. half the immigrants I know work with have encountered in a hypothetical situation I want a lawyer that could possibly live here but I have personally never encountered aided or abetted around are brother or sister of someone here that they knew and are currently probably staying with while working on residency.

The other half are from Puerto- Rico have been mis-identified as foreigners

[Kanastrous]

Not that I agree with the wealthy/supra-genius etc, but why shouldn't a sovereign nation decide who it does and does not want as new citizens and residents?

[KrauserKrauser]

Last time I checked, legal aliens to the country are already required by federal law to have identification on them at all times.

This changes what, exactly?

[Coyote]

Last time I checked, legal aliens to the country are already required by federal law to have identification on them at all times.

This changes what, exactly?

The Arizona law allows police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone if they think there might be a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. Technically, if you cannot provide proof of US citizenship, then your ass can be hauled off to jail.

I don't have my birth certificate with me at all times, nothing on my driver's license, etc, says anything about me being born in the USA.

Of course, I don't have dark skin or an accent, so I doubt I'll come under "reasonable suspicion". So, "reasonable suspicion" basically gets boiled down to "who's a darky?"

A US citizen of Mexican ancestry has, I understand, already spent some time in jail basically for being dark in a Wonder Bread zone.

[General Zod]

Last time I checked, legal aliens to the country are already required by federal law to have identification on them at all times.

This changes what, exactly?

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, although the punishment and enforcement tactics of the Arizona are much more severe.

In short, Arizona's trying to overstep its authority.

[Master of Ossus]

In short, Arizona's trying to overstep its authority.

I don't think the law, here, is as settled as you make it sound. State police officers can demand that people identify themselves if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is committing a crime, or even if they don't have specific suspicions about the individual in question but are investigating a crime, under the constitution. Failing to identify oneself can result in a misdemeanor conviction and imprisonment. Arizona's law specifically targets a subset of behaviors, though, that fall within the plenary power of Congress and the federal government. So regarding only the ID issue there ought to be a question of first-impression on whether a state can use its police powers to demand identification and then use information gleaned from that demand for identification to enforce a federal law.

[Flagg]

In short, Arizona's trying to overstep its authority.

I don't think the law, here, is as settled as you make it sound. State police officers can demand that people identify themselves if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is committing a crime, or even if they don't have specific suspicions about the individual in question but are investigating a crime, under the constitution. Failing to identify oneself can result in a misdemeanor conviction and imprisonment. Arizona's law specifically targets a subset of behaviors, though, that fall within the plenary power of Congress and the federal government. So regarding only the ID issue there ought to be a question of first-impression on whether a state can use its police powers to demand identification and then use information gleaned from that demand for identification to enforce a federal law.

Yeah, but under the law identifying yourself is as simple as giving the right name/ birthday or social security number to a cop, not necessarily providing an actual physical ID.

[Serafina]

Last time I checked, legal aliens to the country are already required by federal law to have identification on them at all times.

This changes what, exactly?

The Arizona law allows police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone if they think there might be a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. Technically, if you cannot provide proof of US citizenship, then your ass can be hauled off to jail.

I don't have my birth certificate with me at all times, nothing on my driver's license, etc, says anything about me being born in the USA.

Of course, I don't have dark skin or an accent, so I doubt I'll come under "reasonable suspicion". So, "reasonable suspicion" basically gets boiled down to "who's a darky?"

A US citizen of Mexican ancestry has, I understand, already spent some time in jail basically for being dark in a Wonder Bread zone.

Wait a second - what about tourists? They can't possibly have a document showing their citizenship to the USA - does the law address that situation or is this one of those moronic american laws that fails to address such things?

[Coyote]

Wait a second - what about tourists? They can't possibly have a document showing their citizenship to the USA - does the law address that situation or is this one of those moronic american laws that fails to address such things?

This is a law that makes Teabaggers cream themselves in joy. What do you think?

Let's just say I hope you already saw the Grand Canyon before Arizona became another member of the "y'all better not let th' sun set on yer ass here!" club.

Actually, to be honest, since you're white you probably won't face any problems.

[Enigma]

Wait a second - what about tourists? They can't possibly have a document showing their citizenship to the USA - does the law address that situation or is this one of those moronic american laws that fails to address such things?

But they would have passports\visas on them.

[Serafina]

Wait a second - what about tourists? They can't possibly have a document showing their citizenship to the USA - does the law address that situation or is this one of those moronic american laws that fails to address such things?

But they would have passports\visas on them.

Yes, sure - but if i understand that correctly, then you can be put into jail for not carrying citizenship papers. Which a tourist would not have.
Does anyone have a link to that law, so that we could look that up?

[Scottish Ninja]

Wait a second - what about tourists? They can't possibly have a document showing their citizenship to the USA - does the law address that situation or is this one of those moronic american laws that fails to address such things?

But they would have passports\visas on them.

Yes, sure - but if i understand that correctly, then you can be put into jail for not carrying citizenship papers. Which a tourist would not have.
Does anyone have a link to that law, so that we could look that up?

They can only arrest you if they suspect that you are an illegal immigrant and you can't provide documentation (whether passport/visa for legal visitors/immigrants or whatever for citizens) that you are in the country legally. It's not as if they can arrest legal immigrants for not being citizens.

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.

[Master of Ossus]

Yeah, but under the law identifying yourself is as simple as giving the right name/ birthday or social security number to a cop, not necessarily providing an actual physical ID.

It strikes me as being a very slight expansion to expand that to requiring the person to show ID. If no ID is required, what's to prevent someone from replying that "My name is Joe Blowyourself, and my SSN is 555-55-5555?" It can't be that easy to avoid a self-identification law, and the SCOTUS made it pretty clear that what the NV statute tested in Hiibel was not the limit of what a state could constitutionally demand.

Further, people are required to show physical ID at airports, even though the right to fly has been held to have some constitutional protection. While it's true that a person in an airport is necessarily sacrificing some of their privacy entitlements that someone merely appearing in public might not, I still don't see it as much of a leap that a state could require people to show ID to police during an investigation, or with "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity. Requiring probable cause or some even higher standard just to get someone to show ID would seem anomalous.

[General Zod]

Yeah, but under the law identifying yourself is as simple as giving the right name/ birthday or social security number to a cop, not necessarily providing an actual physical ID.

It strikes me as being a very slight expansion to expand that to requiring the person to show ID. If no ID is required, what's to prevent someone from replying that "My name is Joe Blowyourself, and my SSN is 555-55-5555?" It can't be that easy to avoid a self-identification law, and the SCOTUS made it pretty clear that what the NV statute tested in Hiibel was not the limit of what a state could constitutionally demand.

Further, people are required to show physical ID at airports, even though the right to fly has been held to have some constitutional protection. While it's true that a person in an airport is necessarily sacrificing some of their privacy entitlements that someone merely appearing in public might not, I still don't see it as much of a leap that a state could require people to show ID to police during an investigation, or with "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity. Requiring probable cause or some even higher standard just to get someone to show ID would seem anomalous.

It's an entirely unnecessary law since the police could already ask you for ID if they suspect you of something and detain you until they could identify you. The problem is this law calls for even harsher penalties than federal laws.

[Kanastrous]

It's necessary if you want to utilize that police power to enhance enforcement of immigration laws. So for the state's purposes, it *is* necessary. Whether or not one approves of those purposes is something else, again.

[General Zod]

It's necessary if you want to utilize that police power to enhance enforcement of immigration laws. So for the state's purposes, it *is* necessary. Whether or not one approves of those purposes is something else, again.

. . .that's why this is a problem. States aren't supposed to be "enhancing" Federal laws, they're supposed to follow them.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but under the law identifying yourself is as simple as giving the right name/ birthday or social security number to a cop, not necessarily providing an actual physical ID.

It strikes me as being a very slight expansion to expand that to requiring the person to show ID.

I'm not in disagreement.

[Kanastrous]

It's necessary if you want to utilize that police power to enhance enforcement of immigration laws. So for the state's purposes, it *is* necessary. Whether or not one approves of those purposes is something else, again.

. . .that's why this is a problem. States aren't supposed to be "enhancing" Federal laws, they're supposed to follow them.

Not 'enhancing' the law, 'enhancing' law enforcement's ability to enforce the law. Not the same thing. Not close, either.

[General Zod]

It's necessary if you want to utilize that police power to enhance enforcement of immigration laws. So for the state's purposes, it *is* necessary. Whether or not one approves of those purposes is something else, again.

. . .that's why this is a problem. States aren't supposed to be "enhancing" Federal laws, they're supposed to follow them.

Not 'enhancing' the law, 'enhancing' law enforcement's ability to enforce the law. Not the same thing. Not close, either.

You missed the part where Arizona's enacted significantly harsher penalties than Federal laws. That doesn't have anything to do with giving law enforcement "extra tools" or whatever.

[Master of Ossus]

It's an entirely unnecessary law since the police could already ask you for ID if they suspect you of something and detain you until they could identify you.

A process which is costly to the police and time-consuming.

The problem is this law calls for even harsher penalties than federal laws.

What are the harsher penalties than federal laws? So far as I can tell, the bill only allows law enforcement to fine ($500 minimum; doubled for subsequent offenses) people who "willfully" fail to carry identification and identify themselves. That's not even a direct penalty for violating federal immigration laws; it's specifically a penalty for willful failure to comply with the Arizona statute. (The employers and other third-parties might be penalized more harshly, but we're not talking about that, are we...? I haven't compared their issues with federal law).

Also, I disagree with your assessment that federal immigration laws are "harsh." They don't actually appear to me to impose any substantive penalty on the illegal alien--fine and imprisonment for 6 months maximum both seem very minor. Furthermore, the outrage over the AZ bill seems to focus entirely on the stop-and-identify aspect of it, as opposed to anything else.

[Kanastrous]

You missed the part where Arizona's enacted significantly harsher penalties than Federal laws. That doesn't have anything to do with giving law enforcement "extra tools" or whatever.

Since the Arizona law is a tool that's intended to lead to more illegal immigrants being turned over to the Feds, how are the penalties harsher? Since the Feds will actually be handling the 'penalty' part of the process (that is, if they condescend to...)