Brewer to Countersue Federal Government Over Immigration Enforcement

.

Brewer to Countersue Federal Government Over Immigration Enforcement  

Published February 10, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Thursday that her state will file a countersuit against the federal government, claiming Washington has failed to enforce immigration law along the southern border.

The governor said the federal government hasn't secured the state's border with Mexico and has stuck Arizona with the costs tied to illegal immigration.

"Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer said.

Brewer went "On the Record" with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Thursday night and said she is "in it to win it."

"We're continually looking at arrests of drug cartels," she said. "It's just untolerable."

"We will fight it all all the way to the Supreme Court," she added."

The announcement is the latest swipe in the ongoing legal dispute between Arizona and the U.S. Department of Justice over the state's tough immigration law. After the Obama administration challenged that law, a judge last year blocked key portions of it from going into effect. While the case is on appeal, Brewer said the countersuit will be filed as part of the federal government's challenge.

"It's outrageous the United States Department of Justice sued the people of Arizona to stop Senate Bill 1070," Brewer said. "Our message for the federal government is very simple -- use federal resources to combat the cartels who are breaking the federal law."

Arizona plans to sue on five different counts, including a claim that the federal government has failed to enforce immigration laws enacted by Congress and a claim it has failed to reimburse the state for costs associated with jailing criminal immigrants.

The original Arizona immigration law was passed following years of complaints that the federal government hadn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point.

A judge blocked the most controversial portions of the law, such as a requirement that says police, while enforcing other laws, must question people's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Judge Dismisses Part of Challenge to Ariz. Immigration Law

.
Published December 11, 2010 | Associated Press

PHOENIX -- A federal judge has dismissed parts of the U.S. Department of Justice's challenge to Arizona's new immigration law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on Friday struck down the federal government's challenge to the portion of the law that prohibits the transport of illegal immigrants.

But Bolton's ruling didn't have any effect on the portions of the law that she previously prevented from taking effect, including a requirement that immigrants get or carry immigration registration papers.

In that ruling in July, Bolton let other portions take effect, including a ban on obstructing traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on public streets.

Bolton on Friday denied Gov. Jan Brewer's request to dismiss challenges to the law's most controversial sections.

Nine Latin America countries join U.S. Justice Dept against Arizona

.
KTAR News
by KTAR.com (November 16th, 2010 @ 11:56am)

PHOENIX -- Anger about Arizona's tough immigration law has spread from Mexico throughout Latin America, according to a report in "USA Today."

Ecuador Ambassador Luis Gallegos told the United Nations Human Rights Council in early November that he is extremely concerned that the Arizona law will lead to widespread stereotyping of both legal and illegal immigrants.

The council included the Arizona law in its list of concerns sent to the U.S. State Department.

Ecuador and nine other Latin America countries have signed on to a brief supporting the U.S. Justice Department's suit challenging Arizona's law. A U.S. District court judge put the main parts of the law on hold just before it was to take effect in July. Arizona is appealing that ruling before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

State Department spokesman Charles Luoma-Overstreet told USA Today that the Arizona law has become a topic of discussion "in all our interactions" with Latin American countries.

Mauricio Cardenas, director of the Latin American Initiative at the Brookings Institution, said,

"The countries in Latin American are already perceiving some distance and disengagement from the U.S. The Arizona law makes Latin America more and more interested in developing stronger relations with other parts of the world."

In the brief filed in support of the Justice Department suit challenging Arizona's law, the 10 Latin America countries argue the law harms their citizens living and working in Arizona and could hurt "bilateral economic, immigration and security policies" between the United States and those countries.

Other states are considering immigration laws similar to Arizona's, and Gallegos said that is of significant concern.

"My basic question is, are we going to have a more protectionist United States that is more inclined to discriminating and persecuting groups like the migrants?" Gallegos said in an interview from Geneva. "We would hope that the federal government would be wise enough to enact a law which encompasses these issues."

Brewer said Arizona was forced to act and pass the law because the federal government has failed to secure the border and stop illegal immigration.
.

Justice Dept. asks judge to force Ariz. sheriff to turn over documents in civil-rights probe

.
Published September 13, 2010 | Associated Press

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge in Arizona to force Maricopa County Sheriff Joe  Arpaio  and his office to provide full and immediate access to records and facilities for a civil-rights investigation without going to trial.

The motion for summary judgment filed Monday also asks the court to force the sheriff's office to comply with all future requests involving the probe.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed an unprecedented lawsuit against Arpaio's office for refusing to turn over documents or allow federal officials to evaluate jails and interview staff.

The sheriff's office has challenged whether the Justice Department is entitled to everything it has requested, such as records on booking procedures, language services and arrests.

___

Information from: The Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/13/justice-dept-asks-judge-force-ariz-sheriff-turn-documents-civil-rights-probe/
.

States Join Legal Brief Supporting Ariz. Immigration Law as Donations Roll Into Gov. Brewer's Defense Fund

.
Published September 04, 2010 | Associated Press

PHOENIX -- Nearly a dozen states have filed a legal brief in support of Arizona's controversial immigration  law.

A"friend of the court" brief filed with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday argues that a federal judge was wrong to block implementation of key provisions of the law.

The brief submitted by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox argues that the judge used the wrong legal standard to rule on the U.S. Justice Department's request for a preliminary injunction.

It also says the judge erred in ruling that the law interferes with the executive branch's immigration enforcement priorities.

Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia joined in the filing.

In addition to the legal brief, a Wyoming man has given more than $1.5 million to help defend Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement measure in court, Gov. Jan Brewer's office said Thursday.

The contribution from Timothy Mellon of Saratoga is the largest to Brewer's defense fund, which has amassed more than $3.6 million from 41,000 donors nationwide. Mellon could not immediately be reached for comment.

The latest legal bills released Thursday show Brewer's office has spent more than $440,000 for the first two months of defending the law.

The bills, obtained through a public records request by The Associated Press, are for work performed through June by Phoenix law firm Snell & Wilmer. They do not cover July hearings in federal court before a judge Susan Bolton temporarily blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions.

Brewer has appealed Bolton's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Her office is defending the state against seven lawsuits challenging Arizona's law, including cases filed by the U.S. Justice of Department, civil rights groups and two police officers.

Bolton has dismissed two of the cases.

"The fees incurred have been, and will continue to be, sizeable," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said, noting there have been more than 900 legal filings totaling more than 12,000 pages.

Arizona's law would generally require officers enforcing other measures to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

.

Arizona Hits Back at Immigration Ruling as 'Wrong' on Law

.

Arizona Files Legal Brief Hitting Back at Federal Ruling Against State's Immigration Law

Published August 26, 2010 | FoxNews.com  

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers on Thursday filed the first brief in their appeal of a ruling that put the most controversial elements of Arizona's new immigration law on hold.

The governor says the federal ruling blocking portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law "has caused irreparable harm" to the state's residents.

Brewer wants the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reverse the ruling U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton made last month.

The governor's office says Bolton abused her discretion by applying the wrong legal standards and basing her ruling on the federal government's speculation that it would be harmed by Arizona's law. Brewer says the judge ignored key provisions of federal law that allow states to enforce immigration law.

"The decision to suspend portions of SB 1070 has caused irreparable harm to the safety and well-being of Arizona's citizens who continue to suffer every day that the federal government refuses to do its job," Brewer said in a written statement.

The U.S. Justice Department went to court in a bid to invalidate the law.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment Thursday.

Bolton blocked provisions of the law that requires immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers and that require police, while enforcing other laws, to question people's immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

But the judge let other portions take effect late last month, such a ban on blocking traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets, and amendments to existing state immigration laws.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

DOJ Holds Off On Suing Arpaio — For Now

.
By Mike Levine
On August 17, 2010 @ 6:45 PM In Immigration

The Justice Department says it won't follow through on a threat to sue controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- at least not for another week.

According to a Justice Department official, things are on hold pending a meeting set for next Tuesday in Washington with Justice Department officials and lawyers for Arpaio, whose office is under investigation by the Justice Department for alleged civil rights violations. Arpaio has become a controversial figure over what some say are overly aggressive tactics to fight illegal immigration in Arizona.

In a letter dated Aug. 3, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, accused Arpaio of failing to cooperate with the department's investigation, warning that, "Absent [your office's] voluntary cooperation with this investigation within two weeks -- by August 17, 2010 -- the Department will file a Title VI civil action to compel access to the requested documents, facilities, and personnel."

Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, law enforcement programs receiving federal assistance cannot discriminate on the basis of race or national origin, and those in charge of the programs promise to operate in accordance with all requirements.

Lawyers for Arpaio recently requested a conference with Justice Department officials to discuss the matter. A conference call was set up for Aug. 17, the day of the deadline, but then both sides agreed to an in-person meeting a week later, according to the Justice Department official. On Monday, the day before the deadline, Justice Department lawyers decided to make no decisions about further action until the in-person meeting, the official said.

The Justice Department launched its investigation in March 2009, telling Arpaio in letters at the time that the "investigation will focus on alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and on allegations of national origin discrimination, including failure to provide meaningful access to MCSO services for limited English proficient individuals." In addition, the Justice Department said, the investigation will look at allegations that Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "has an English-only policy in its jails," including a requirement that even bilingual detention officers "speak to inmates in English at all times, except in case of an emergency."

While Arpaio's office subsequently provided some documents, it has largely refused to meet the Justice Department's requests. Arpaio has criticized the investigation as politically motivated.

Still, two days after Perez sent his letter threatening to sue Arpaio, the sheriff's lawyers insisted Arpaio "has made good faith efforts to cooperate with the Division's Title VI investigation."

"Furthermore, [the office] stands ready and willing to meet and confer with the Division to address any concerns that the Division might have with regard to [their] cooperation and production of documents related to the investigation of the complaint that forms the basis of the Title VI investigation," attorney Robert Driscoll wrote.

Arpaio's lawyers argue that their client is legally required to cooperate with a "limited portion" of the Justice Department's investigation, the portion looking at "allegations of national origin discrimination." But, they say, Arpaio is not obligated to comply with requests not covered by Title VI, particularly requests related to "alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office."

Meanwhile, a grand jury in Phoenix is looking into separate matters related to Arpaio's tenure as sheriff.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Liveshots: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com

URL to article: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/17/doj-holds-off-on-suing-arpaio-for-now/

.

Gov. Brewer to Supporters, July 28, 9:45pm

.

To Supporters of Arizona :    

The United States District Court of Arizona ruled against significant parts of Arizona’s immigration law hours ago. This decision is being hailed by those who do not want to enforce our laws.

While the decision is disappointing, it is not the end. We plan to appeal the court’s ruling, and I remain confident we will ultimately prevail.

In order to best continue the fight for our immigration law, we must step up and expand our efforts.

That’s why I’m asking you to make a secure, online contribution to the Republican Governors Association right now by CLICKING HERE.  (https://www.rga.org/arizona/)

The RGA is the only organization exclusively dedicated to electing governors like me who are not afraid to do what it takes to protect our citizens and make our borders safe.

The RGA has stood by my side and has my complete confidence - I hope they will have yours too. We know liberals in Washington, D.C., the East Coast media, and people like Al Sharpton will continue to do everything possible to distort what our law does and smear anyone who endorses it, which is why it is vital you support the RGA.

The RGA helps governors like me who are willing to tell the federal government “enough is enough.” Simply put, the RGA is a key partner and with me on the frontlines.

Please support the RGA by contributing $100, $50, $25, $10 or whatever you can afford today. I know times are tough, but every dollar makes a tremendous difference. Please CLICK HERE to donate right now.

With your support, I am confident we will prevail.

Sincerely,

Gov. Jan Brewer

P.S. Our appeal will occur very soon. Please give to the RGA immediately: https://www.rga.org/arizona/

Corporate Contributions are accepted.

Contributions to the RGA are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions will not be used in connection with any federal election activity. Contributions to the RGA may be used in one of the RGA's affiliated state PACs. Contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited.

Paid for by Republican Governors Association
.

Arizona Fights Obama's Immigration Suit, Blames Feds for 'Crushing Burden'

.
- FoxNews.com, July 21, 2010

Arizona urged a federal judge Tuesday to reject the Obama administration's challenge to its tough new immigration law, arguing the border state is acting within its powers.

Gov. Jan Brewer said President Obama is trying to prevent Arizona from protecting its citizens with the Justice Department suit, one of seven seeking to have the new law blocked before it goes into effect July 29.

The Tuesday filing said illegal immigration and a lack of comprehensive enforcement by the federal government has caused "crushing personal, environmental, criminal, and financial burdens" on Arizona.

"Arizona merely seeks to assist with the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws in a constitutional manner," lawyers for Brewer said. "It is [the Obama administration] that is attempting to impose immigration policies and priorities that contravene and conflict with federal law and unambiguous congressional intent."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

In a statement, Brewer said she was "confident that the court will reject President Obama's attempt to prevent our state from protecting its citizens as a result of his failure to enforce federal immigration laws."

"My filing today makes clear that the federal government will suffer no harm if [the law] is implemented because the act requires only that Arizona's law enforcement officers act in accordance with their constitutional authority and congressionally established federal policy," she said.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will hear oral arguments on Thursday and could issue a preliminary injunction if she finds that ultimately the Obama administration would succeed in its quest to have the law struck down.

The stakes are incredibly high. If Bolton rules in Arizona's favor, it opens the door to states taking on issues that have long been the responsibility of the federal government.

Bolton has ruled in two cases unrelated to immigration that federal law trumps state law.

In 2008, Bolton threw out a claim by a woman who alleged her employer broke a federal law on overtime pay. The woman made the claim under federal law but sought more generous damages under a state law dictating when an employee is to be paid. The judge threw out her claim under state law.

Three years earlier, in a lawsuit from a woman who claimed she was harmed by taking a cold medicine, Bolton ruled that a state law immunizing drug makers from most punitive damages in product liability cases was superseded by federal law.

Bolton has declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press about the Arizona law.

Bolton was born in 1951 and raised in Philadelphia, earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Iowa and clerked for a state appeals court judge in Arizona. During her 11 years as an attorney in private practice, she co-authored a book that provides legal and clinical perspectives on violence in families.

She was appointed to the state bench in 1989 by Democratic Gov. Rose Mofford. When she was considered for a state Supreme Court post several years later, she was listed as an Independent. Her current voter registration records have been sealed.

Many lawyers who pressed cases in her court praised Bolton's meticulous reading of their filings. She asks tough questions, they said, and can handle the mountain of paper that's coming from the seven challenges to the law.

"I always felt like I got a fair shake out of her, even if she didn't rule my way," said Ed Novak, the former president of the State Bar of Arizona.

But Bolton's decisions haven't always been popular. In 2000, she struck from the ballot a land-preservation proposal advanced by the Arizona Legislature. The measure was a bid to counter a similar proposal by environmentalists that remained on the ballot.

Bolton said the Legislature's proposal violated a state constitutional requirement that ballot measures cannot cover more than one subject.

Critics called Bolton an activist judge, and accused her of working with the environmentalists to torpedo the Legislature's option.

"It seemed to me that it was more of a political decision than a decision based on fact," said Rusty Bowers, then the Senate majority leader.

Bolton's decision was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, and the measure appeared on the ballot and was defeated.

Paul Charlton, Arizona's top federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2007, said the criticism was unfair.

"It would be a mistake to put any kind of label on her," Charlton said. "This is someone who is not concerned with external political issues."

In any case, the lawyers in her courtroom shouldn't count on Bolton cutting them slack.

When government attorneys asked earlier this month for a last-minute hearing on whether to block Arizona's immigration law, Bolton called it laughable.

Under their timetable, Bolton would've had just 60 hours before the law took effect to decide whether to block it.

"That is completely unrealistic," Bolton said, instead setting the hearing for this week.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Arizona Latino Group Criticizes DoJ Lawsuit

Published : Friday, 09 Jul 2010, 4:12 PM MDT

PHOENIX - An Arizona Latino group has some harsh words for the Obama administration. The Arizona Latino Republican Association, a conservative Latino group, says the Department of Justice lawsuit is "frivolous."

In a statement, ALRA Chairman Jesse Hernandez said, "The original premise for the U.S. Justice Departments lawsuit against Arizona was that SB 1070 violated civil rights and encouraged racial profiling. When that no longer remained applicable, the Administration changed course and now alleges that Arizona's law is unconstitutional, barring the state its right to enforce federal law and crack down on illegal immigration."

Hernandez continued to add that the administration's lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars and that the government should spend the money securing the border and enforcing its own immigration laws.

"The U.S. Department of Justice maintains that it is the federal government and the federal government alone, that has the responsibility to address immigration, secure the nations borders, and enforce immigration laws. If that is true, then what is a state to do when the federal government refuses to do its job?

"Moreover, the courts have repeatedly held that states may enforce federal laws, so their legal argument is hollow. Finally, numerous cities and states already have in place laws like SB1070, yet the Obama Administration has never challenged any of them. This is a political stunt, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, although the ultimate price will likely be paid by President Obama and his allies in November," said State Representative Steve Montenegro, a Hispanic community leader.

The ALRA says the United States' immigration system is "dysfunctional" and supports the right for Arizona to defend its border from unlawful entry.

Obama Administration Sues Arizona Over SB 1070

.

Fox Business, Tuesday, July 06, 2010 

WASHINGTON--The Obama administration Tuesday sued Arizona over the state's strict new immigration law in a move that drew fire from Republicans who said the border needed more security.

The Arizona law requires state and local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant, provoking criticism that it is unconstitutional and would sap law enforcement resources.

The Republican-controlled Arizona legislature passed the law to try to stem the flood of thousands of illegal immigrants who cross its border from Mexico each month and to cut down on drug trafficking and other crimes in the area.

The lawsuit, filed while Congress was on a week-long break, is part of a broader approach by President Barack Obama to deal with the 10.8 million illegal immigrants believed to be in the country, arguing that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government not each state.

The legal action is a political gamble by the administration as a Pew Research Center poll showed 59 percent of people approve of the Arizona crackdown.

The Arizona law would "interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States' relationship with Mexico and other countries," the Justice Department said in the 25-page lawsuit.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in federal court in Arizona and asked for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the controversial law, which is slated to take effect on July 29.

The legal fight also comes at a critical juncture, four months ahead of the mid-term congressional elections and the Hispanic community has been a major voting bloc that typically has sided with Democrats but Republicans have tried to woo.

Republicans condemned the lawsuit, saying the law had not yet taken effect therefore any challenge was premature and that the new was needed because the federal government had failed to deal with the issue.

"The Obama administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state," the two Republican senators from Arizona, John McCain and Jon Kyl, said in a statement.

RAISING QUESTIONS

Administration officials and critics have condemned the law, raising questions about whether it was constitutional and could lead to racial profiling and broaden a rift with Hispanics, a rapidly growing population in the United States.

Obama has warned that the Arizona law could lead to a patchwork of different laws passed by the various U.S. states and said that the matter should be resolved at the federal level by Congress.

Last week he gave his first major speech on immigration reform since taking office, calling for both political sides to join together to pass a comprehensive measure, but it has largely been overshadowed by the economic crisis and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality," Obama said.

Obama has backed allowing undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and become citizens. He also has supported tightening border security and clamping down on employers that hire undocumented workers.

But opposing Republicans have said that border security must be significantly improved before dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants, many of them Hispanics, in the country.

Mexico and several civil liberties groups have opposed the Arizona measure, and several other legal challenges are pending in federal court in the state.

Obama has pledged to spend an extra $600 million and send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border to tighten security, however the initial steps to do so have been criticized as too little to address the problem.

The case is United States of America v. State of Arizona et al; Case No. 10-cv-1413 in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

.

Brewer to Supporters, re: Federal Lawsuit July 6, 2010 5:08pm

.

Arizona needs your help to defend against Obama lawsuit


Today, we received official notice of the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona. 


I am sure you will agree with me that the Administration’s lawsuit is an outrageous use of taxpayer money and a sure sign that the President is more interested in politics than securing our southern border.

This lawsuit follows the President’s immigration speech in which he called for comprehensive immigration reform that – not surprisingly – includes a path to citizenship for those who entered our country illegally.

Let me be clear, I will defend the rule of law all the way to the Supreme Court of this land if necessary. I will continue to demand that the Federal government live up to its responsibility to control our Southern border and to protect our homeland. And, I will oppose the President’s amnesty plan.

But I need your immediate help today.

In order to respond to President Obama’s lawsuit I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the legal fees that Arizona has been forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.

I urge all Americans who want a secure border to contribute to this fund immediately.

This is not just an Arizona issue, this is an American issue. Are we or are we not going to enforce the rule of law in America? The burden alone should not be shouldered by Arizonans. Arizona needs you to answer the call today, right now.

Click here to contribute now.

Make no mistake; Arizona’s immigration law affects the safety and well-being of every U.S. citizen. The federal government has failed to enforce the rule of law.

As long as the Federal Government refuses to do its job, I will ensure that Arizona continues to live by a rule of law.

Your immediate donation of $250, $125, $75 or whatever you can afford you can afford will go directly into fighting President Obama’s lawsuit. I do ask that you make this very important commitment today so we can immediately begin to defend against the President’s actions.

Arizona is the front line of our nation’s illegal immigration crisis. The federal government is broken and our border is not secure. That is why Arizona had to act.

I will not stop fighting to protect our country. I will defend us in federal court and we will continue to do the job President Obama refuses to do.

Join me today by clicking here now.

Sincerely,

Governor Jan Brewer
.

Amid crises, Obama declares war -- on Arizona | Washington Examiner

.
Amid crises, Obama declares war -- on Arizona
Washington ExaminerBy: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
June 22, 2010
(AP)

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that's getting uglier by the day.

First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."

But they didn't.

"There certainly seems to be an underlying disrespect for the state of Arizona," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law.

Kobach points out that during the Bush years, several states openly flouted federal immigration law on issues like sanctuary cities and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Respecting the doctrines of comity and federalism, the Bush administration didn't sue. Now, when Arizona passes a measure that is fully consistent with federal law, the Obama administration, says Kobach, "goes sprinting to the courthouse door."

Then there is the matter of the White House's assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona's border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.

June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren't.

"What a disappointment," Brewer told van Susteren. "You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing."

And now, there's the Kyl controversy. On June 18, Kyl told a town meeting in North Phoenix that Obama personally told him the administration will not secure the U.S.-Mexico border because doing so would make it politically difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

"I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us," Kyl said. "Here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."

"In other words," Kyl continued, "they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."

After Kyl's statement went viral on the Internet, the White House issued a sharp denial.

"The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."

Kyl is not backing down.

"What I said occurred, did occur," he told an Arizona radio station. "Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn't what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that's their position."

Even if it didn't have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that's precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama's campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-crises_-Obama-declares-war----on-Arizona-96839529.html#ixzz0rpWSPTPb

.

DOJ Claims it can Challenge AZ Law - but is actually blowing Smoke...

.
If one actually reads what they are saying here; it becomes clear that they already know that they CAN'T challenge the Arizona law. Their Draft says that the Arizona law is illegal because it "impedes" federal law.  Only - they haven't figured out yet how it impedes it, because the fact is - it doesn't.  They just can't figure out anything else to say. 

So they but they are blowing smoke to make it appear that they know what they are talking about, and that they are TOUGH guys. But what they are really doing is waiting for the law to take effect and hope that a law enforcment officer blows it right away. Then they will jump.  I would be very warry as a law enforcement officer, making sure I didn't get entrapped.

The Obama administration gets more and more comical all the time...


DOJ Lawyers Draft Challenge to AZ Law

A team of Justice Department attorneys reviewing the new immigration law in Arizona has recommended that the U.S. government challenge the state law in federal court, but the recommendation faces an uncertain future and tough scrutiny from others in the Justice Department, sources with knowledge of the process tell Fox News.

Staff attorneys within the Justice Department recently sent higher-ups the recommendation. At the same time, the Justice Department's Civil Division, which oversees the majority of immigration enforcement issues for the department, has drafted a "civil complaint" that would be filed in federal court in Arizona, sources said.

The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.

Two weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers such an issue was being considered by Justice Department lawyers reviewing the new law, which outlines and possibly broadens the authority of police to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally.

"We are examining the [Arizona] law and trying to determine if it contravenes the federal responsibility [toward] immigration, whether or not what the Arizona legislature has tried to do is actually preempted by federal law, by federal statutes." he told the House Judiciary Committee on May 13. "The regulation of our borders and the immigration that occurs by crossing our borders is something that is inherently something I believe for the national government to take responsibility for."

He also said it would not be "an extended period of time" before his department decides whether to take action on "preemption" grounds, adding that the Justice Department's "view of the law will be expressed relatively soon."

Two sources with knowledge of the review said the draft complaint, which is now receiving input from the attorney general's office and other Justice Department offices, is not an indication that the Justice Department will ultimately file a lawsuit.

One source said the Arizona law has sparked a "huge battle" with national implications, and the Justice Department is therefore conducting a "slow analysis of all of the options." [this, despite Holder's assertions to Congress that the decision would be made quickly]

If Justice Department higher-ups decide to move forward with the civil complaint, concrete action likely would not take place for some time, according to the source, who predicted it will be "a while before anything would be filed."

"This is going to be slow going," the source said.

Holder echoed that sentiment when he was on Capitol Hill.

"There's a wide variety of things that go into the determination that ultimately we will have to make, and I want to make sure that we take as comprehensive a look as we can before we make what I think is going to be a very consequential decision," he said.

If the Justice Department's Civil Division decides against filing the complaint, others within the Justice Department could step in. In fact, the attorney general's office, the deputy attorney general's office and the Civil Rights Division are all reviewing options.

Holder told lawmakers that the Civil Rights Division will be monitoring the application of the Arizona law, set to go into effect in late July, and could take subsequent action.

"We are concerned about the potential impact that it has and whether it contravenes federal civil rights laws, potentially leading to racial profiling," he said. "We would constantly be monitoring it to see if there are civil rights violations, civil rights concerns, that are generated by the implementation of the law."

He said such monitoring would occur in any case.  [in other words, they will look as hard as they can to find the police making a mistake, and then they will jump.  They are going to play 'gotcha', because they can;'t find any wrong with the actual law.]

Kris Kobach, a Republican law professor who helped author the Arizona law, said the legislation "expressly prohibits racial profiling." As for the issue of preemption, he said the law was "drafted extremely carefully to avoid any preemption problems at all."

Holder said the Justice Department will also be looking at other issues, including "the history that is involved in all of this" and memos or opinions from other offices within the Justice Department. [because they can't find anything wrong in the actual law.]

Holder himself has raised concerns that the Arizona law could push a "wedge" between police officers and the communities they serve, something he's expected to discuss during a meeting with police chiefs, including three from Arizona, at the Justice Department on Wednesday morning.

"Arizona police chiefs are concerned that the new ... law in Arizona will drive a wedge between the community and the police, and will damage the trust that police agencies have worked to establish over many years with members of all their communities," a statement from the police chiefs said.

Others have raised concerns that a 2002 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel could complicate federal challenges to the Arizona law, especially preemption-related challenges. The 2002 memo said state and local police can arrest illegall immigrants for violating federal law.

But after reviewing the Arizona law and options for challenging it, at least some Justice Department lawyers have concluded that the 2002 memo would not pose a problem because, in their view, it is narrow enough in scope to permit a challenge. ["let's find a loohole around this ruling!"]

As for whether the U.S. government will end up challenging the Arizona law in any form, Holder recently insisted that's still up in the air.

"I don't know exactly ... what we are ultimately going to do with regard to our review of the law," he told lawmakers.

But, he said, there is "certainly an illegal immigration problem that this country needs to face," and he understands the "frustration" of Arizona citizens.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment for this article.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Liveshots: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/

URL to article: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/25/doj-lawyers-draft-challenge-to-az-law/
,