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
.

Judge Lets Mexico Have Voice in Court Case Against U.S. Immigration Law

.

- FoxNews.com, July 01, 2010  

Mexico gets its a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico's request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens' rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued last week, Brewer said she was "very disappointed" to learn of Mexico's filing and reiterated that "Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional."

"I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional," Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

The law's provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.

Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

Amnesty International recently issued a report claiming illegal immigrants in Mexico -- typically from Central America -- face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.

But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.

.

Widow of Houston Officer Killed by Illegal Immigrant 'Shocked' at ICE Appointment

.

FOXNews.com - June 25, 2010

The widow of a Houston police officer killed by an illegal immigrant was "shocked" to learn that the city's former police chief has landed a top immigration job with the Obama administration, her lawyer told FoxNews.com on Friday.

That's because Joslyn Johnson, whose husband, Rodney Johnson, was killed in 2006, is suing former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt for failing to enforce federal immigration laws. She claims her husband would be alive today if the city had bothered to check up on the gunman's immigration status.

Now that Hurtt is taking a job to oversee partnerships between federal and local officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Johnson -- and other critics -- say they're concerned the official who resisted immigration enforcement in Houston will now be in charge of promoting it.

"She was shocked at the irony," Johnson's attorney, Ben Dominguez, said.

As a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers. During his tenure as Houston police chief, he criticized ICE's key program that draws on local law enforcement's support. He said in 2008 that local police "don't want to be immigration officers." He described that as a burden on the force.

Several years after the killing, Hurtt announced he would participate in the federal 287(g) program, which gives local police authority to initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants linked to serious crimes. But then the city backed off the program and linked up with ICE on a separate one that has local officials run immigration checks on suspects once they are in jail.

Johnson could not speak directly to FoxNews.com because she is also a member of the Houston police force and subject to rules prohibiting her from commenting on department policy.

Dominguez, speaking on her behalf, said Johnson believes Hurtt is "competent" but hopes he does not spearhead policies that will put officers in harm's way.

"If (his federal policy is) similar to Houston's policy, then it's going to continue to endanger private citizens and officers," Dominguez said.

The gunman who killed Johnson's husband had already been deported once, returned and then arrested at least three times before he shot the officer. Johnson's original court petition -- naming Hurtt as well as the city and the police department -- claimed that the department's failure to discover the gunman's immigration status and report him to federal authorities enabled him to stay "at large" in the country.

Dominguez said officers at the time were not checking the immigration status of suspects.

Johnson's suit is not seeking monetary damages, aside from attorney fees -- it is seeking a change in policy so that federal immigration databases are widely available to local departments. Hurtt is still a party to the lawsuit but has not been served because he left the force, Dominguez said.

Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for ICE, told FoxNews.com that Hurtt has always been a proponent of the jail model of the 287(g) program, but as a police chief, he didn't favor more proactive local enforcement because he didn't believe it was the best utilization of his resources.

"I think the critics are only talking about half of what he said," she said. "He's always been a strong proponent of every law enforcement agency making those decisions on their own."

But the criticism has been strong.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, questioned whether Hurtt was the right choice for the job.

"Here he is, he should be standing up for the letter of federal law," King said. "I don't know how he can do that given the record that he has. I think this is another piece in the puzzle to granting some type of de facto amnesty."

Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, will assume the position of director for the ICE Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.

Aside from the Houston case, Hurtt's policies have been blamed for enabling illegal immigrants to kill two police officers and seriously injure another in Phoenix before he left in 2005.

But Nantel dismissed such allegations.

"The responsibility of those homicides lies on the shoulder of the individuals who committed the crimes," Nantel said.

.

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

.