AZ Gov. Jan Brewer holds Obama accountable... And he doesn't like it.

Fellow Patriot,

Yesterday, AZ Gov. Jan Brewer greeted Barack Obama as he deplaned from Air Force One, as governors often do. But unlike other governors, she and the president had what can only be described as an intense encounter on the tarmac.

As Obama stepped off the plane, Gov. Brewer handed the president a “welcome” note to the state, as well as an invitation to talk about a comeback for her state. But Obama wasn’t interested.

Rather, the pro-Amnesty president used the opportunity to snub Gov. Brewer who is known nationwide for her tireless fight to secure America’s southern border. This past fall, she even took on fencing the U.S.-Mexico border since the feds have brushed off OUR demands.


HELP MMPAC FIGHT FOR GOV. BREWER’S ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW! THE FEDS WON’T BUILD THE FENCE BUT BREWER WILL! HOLD OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE – SELECT HERE!

According to Gov. Brewer, “[Obama] immediately took umbrage,” with her book, ‘Scorpions for Breakfast,’ and was “disgruntled” she wrote that the he was “patronizing” in a one-on-one meeting about border security even though publicly she told the media they had simply agreed to disagree over border security measures.

The White House says the president is willing to meet with her again and looks forward to discussion about improving Arizona’s economy. Whether or not Obama was willing to meet with Brewer again to discuss securing the U.S.-Mexico border was not mentioned by White House officials.

And we’re pretty sure we already know the answer to that one.

Time and time again, the feds have been asked, plead with and begged by U.S. Citizens to secure the fence, and over recent years, Gov. Brewer has been among the bravest – if not the bravest – elected official to stand up to Washington. And now, with Barack Obama’s insult to Brewer, it’s crystal clear that under Washington’s leadership, illegal immigrants will continue destroying our country.


HELP MMPAC FIGHT FOR GOV. BREWER’S ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW! THE FEDS WON’T BUILD THE FENCE BUT BREWER WILL! HOLD OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE – SELECT HERE!

It’s also crystal clear that we need to show Washington whose side voting American citizens are on… Right now, we need to show our support for this tough-as-nails Governor who is not afraid to look Obama in the eye and challenge him to his face. We need to keep up the fight to secure our borders now and make sure our message is not lost in election year politics.

Reporters who witnessed Wednesday’s exchange say that Brewer was pointing her finger at him at one point and they seemed to also be talking over one another. It also appeared to them that Obama walked away while Brewer was in mid-sentence.

Gov. Brewer said when asked that she wasn’t thrown off by the president bringing up the book (and his wounded ego), but that she thought they probably should have talked about jobs.


HELP MMPAC FIGHT FOR GOV. BREWER’S ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW! THE FEDS WON’T BUILD THE FENCE BUT BREWER WILL! HOLD OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE – SELECT HERE!

Arizona is leading the way for other states to hold the federal government responsible for upholding its Constitutional duty to secure the border with their next fight against the pro-Amnesty lobbyists taken up by the Supreme Court this spring.

As you’re aware, Gov. Brewer’s state has been taking fire from the Obama administration for its crackdown on illegal immigration – from securing the border to enforcing federal immigration law. Arizona's counterclaim filed with the Supreme Court is based on five fundamental points:

(i) the federal government has failed to gain "operational control of the border," as required by federal law;

(ii) failed to enforce federal immigration law;

(iii) failed to protect Arizona from harms associated with illegal immigration;

(iv) been negligent in reimbursing Arizona for more than $760 million in costs for incarcerating illegal immigrants;

(v) sought to pre-empt the state from protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.

And we're here to help Arizona every step of the way.

It’s up to you and I to support Arizona’s rise to action against illegal immigration be it in court defending state's rights or physically securing our border with Mexico.

Gov. Brewer – not Obama – is standing up for America against illegal immigration. We need to stand up with her.

For America,

Minuteman PAC

P.S. America’s Border Sheriffs will file their amicus brief, a critical component supporting Arizona’s SB1070 law against illegal immigration, with the Supreme Court on February 2 as they prepare to hear our case this spring. The legal bill to file Arizona’s amicus brief will top $300,000, and they are asking for our support to keep legal costs off the backs of taxpayers. We know times are tough, but please whatever you can afford WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Please take a moment right now to contribute $5, $25, $100, or even $250 – whatever you can afford in these tough times – to defending America from illegal immigration and securing our southern border NOW.

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.
.

Study: 100,000 Hispanics Left Arizona After SB1070

.

Published November 12, 2010 | Associated Press

 

MEXICO CITY -- A new study suggests there may be 100,000 fewer Hispanics in Arizona than there were before the debate over the state's tough new immigration law earlier this year.

BBVA Bancomer Research, which did the study, worked with figures from the U.S. Current Population Survey. The study says the decline could be due to the law known as SB1070, which partly entered into effect in July, or to Arizona's difficult economic situation.

The study released Wednesday also cites Mexican government figures as saying that 23,380 Mexicans returned from Arizona to Mexico between June and September.

U.S. census figures from 2008 say about 30 percent of people living in Arizona are Hispanic, or about 1.9 million.

The state is appealing a ruling that put on hold parts of the law, which would have allowed police to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.

Immigrants are heavily employed in Arizona's construction industry, which has suffered -- along with the rest of the state's economy -- in the economic downturn.

In that and other studies released at the Global Forum on Migration and Development in the Pacific coast resort of Puerto Vallarta, BBVA Bancomer Research -- part of the financial group of the same name -- estimated that probably about 720,000 Mexican migrants were unemployed in the United States when the study concluded in late October.

The study also predicts that remittances -- the money sent home by migrants working abroad -- won't recover their peak value of about $26 billion until 2012 or 2013.

Remittances fell in 2008 and 2009, largely because of the U.S. slowdown.

Remittances are Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income after oil exports. Nearly all of the money comes from the U.S., where nearly 12 million Mexicans live.

The research center also estimated that remittances were dwarfed by the amount of money Mexican migrants paid in taxes in the United States -- about $53 billion in 2008.
.

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.
.

Ariz. Shelves Plan to Alter Immigration Law

.
- Associated Press, August 18, 2010

PHOENIX -- Arizona legislators are setting aside Gov. Jan Brewer's suggestion that lawmakers consider changing parts of the state's controversial immigration law.

Brewer on July 30 floated the idea of making "tweaks" to the law shortly after a federal judge blocked implementation of numerous provisions. Legislative aides said Tuesday the idea has been shelved, at least temporarily, mainly because of the state's pending appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Everyone agreed ... that it would have been acting in haste to act at this point," said Victor Riches, chief of staff for the House of Representatives' Republican majority.

There's still a possibility that lawmakers could take up the issue in the future but nothing is in the works now, Riches added.

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brewer didn't suggest specific changes to the law but expressed a willingness to consider changes in response to the preliminary injunction issued July 28 by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.

Legislative leaders voiced skepticism about Brewer's idea from the get-go but had aides review it before concluding that no immediate action should be taken.

"It's in the middle of the appeal process. We need to see how at least what the 9th Circuit says," said Greg Jernigan, general counsel to Senate Republicans.

Legislative aides said Brewer raised the possibility of considering changes to the immigration law during a brief special session held last week on an unrelated topic, but she ultimately didn't include it in her special session call.

Jernigan noted that the appellate court has agreed to put the case on a fast track, scheduling a hearing on the case in early November.

Although lawmakers could narrow the reach of a blocked provision barring release of arrested people pending checks of their immigration status, it wasn't realistic to consider changing other provisions blocked by Bolton on grounds that they're pre-empted by federal authority over immigration matters, Jernigan said.

The pre-emption issue will have to be settled by the courts, Jernigan added.

Besides the provision on immigration checks for arrested people, blocked provisions included a requirement that police check a person's status while enforcing other laws if there's a reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally. Bolton also blocked provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned immigrants from soliciting employment in public places.
.

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/

.

Arizona Sheriff: I Won't Be Stopped, Intimidated

.
- FoxNews.com, July 30, 2010

Arizona Sheriff Not Relenting After Court Ruling 

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing aggressive crackdowns on illegal immigration for years. And despite Wednesday's ruling by a federal judge to temporarily block portions of Arizona's new law, the former federal drug agent will continue to carry out sweeps in the country's busiest human and drug trafficking corridor.

Arpaio's tactics have made him the undisputed poster boy for local immigration enforcement, sometimes instructing his deputies to carry out sweeps in Hispanic neighbors to arrest illegal immigrants. His latest sweep was launched Thursday afternoon, when roughly 200 sheriff's deputies and trained volunteers searched metropolitan Phoenix for traffic violators who may be in the country illegally.

"It's my job," said Arpaio, standing beside a sheriff's truck that has a number for an immigration hotline written on its side. "I have two state (immigration) laws that I am enforcing. It's not federal, it's state."

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement statistics, Arpaio's efforts are not misguided, as a total of 55,699 individuals have been deported from the Phoenix field office in fiscal year 2010, easily besting the second-most deportations during that time -- 38,569 -- in the San Antonio area. A total of 268,910 illegal immigrants have been deported as of July 13, 2010, compared to 387,790 for the entire fiscal year 2009.

Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway during Thursday's sweep. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993.

Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed.

Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo.

"It's a Mexican truck so I don't know if they saw that and said, 'I wonder if he has papers or not,"' Salas said. "If that's the case, it kind of gets me upset."

Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Thursday's dragnet led to four arrests, but it wasn't clear if any of them were illegal immigrants.

A ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday put on hold parts of S.B. 1070 that would have required officers to dig deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. Arizona says it was forced to act because the federal government isn't doing its job to fight immigration.

The issue led to demonstrations across the country Thursday, including one directed at Arpaio in Phoenix in which protesters beat on the metal door of a jail and changed "Sheriff Joe, we are here. We will not live in fear."

Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers went to court to overturn the judge's ruling so they can fight back against what the Republican calls an "invasion" of illegal immigrants.

Ever since the main flow of illegal immigrants into the country shifted to Arizona a decade ago, state politicians and local police have been feeling pressure to confront the state's border woes.

In addition to Arpaio's crackdowns, other efforts include a steady stream of busts by the state and local police of stash houses where smugglers hide illegal immigrants. The state attorney general has taken a money-wiring company to civil court on allegations that smugglers used their service to move money to Mexico. And a county south of Phoenix has its sheriff's deputies patrol dangerous smuggling corridors.

The Arizona Legislature have enacted a series of tough-on-immigration measures in recent years that culminated with the controversial new law signed by Brewer in April, catapulting the Republican to the national political stage.

Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics. Arpaio says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause.

"Sheriff Joe Arpaio and some other folks there decided they can make a name for themselves in terms of the intensity of the efforts they're using," said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center. "There's no way to deny that. There are a lot of people getting caught up in these efforts."

The Justice Department launched an investigation of his office nearly 17 months ago over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the department has declined to detail its investigation, Arpaio believes it centers on his sweeps.

Arpaio feels no reservations about continuing to push the sweeps, even after the federal government stripped his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests.

Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling. He has also raided 37 businesses in enforcing a state law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

"I'm not going to brag," Arpaio said. "Just look at the record. I'm doing what I feel is right for the people of Maricopa County."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Law Takes Effect, Ariz. Heads Back to Court

.
- FoxNews.com, July 29, 2010

Arizona's Altered Immigration Law Takes Effect, State Heads Back to Court

Arizona's court-altered illegal immigration law went into effect just after midnight Wednesday, hours after a federal judge blocked its most controversial provisions -- including on-the-spot police checks of suspected illegal immigrants.

Soon after Judge Susan Bolton's decision was announced, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday, asking the appellate court for a swift decision to lift the injunction and allow the blocked provisions to take effect.

Brewer vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary," in a legal process that could take years to unravel, leaving other states considering similar laws in a legislative limbo.

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory after Wednesday's ruling, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," he said

Pearce said that part of Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws. He predicted the battle over the law would eventually end up in the Supreme Court, with Arizona prevailing.

"We will appeal this immediately and we will win on appeal," he told the Arizona Republic. "This will be to the Supreme Court eventually, and I expect a 5-4 decision in our favor, perhaps even 6-3."

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, took effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
..

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 Immigration Law Still a 'Powerful Deterrent'

.

- FoxNews.com, July 28, 2010 

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory in a federal ruling Wednesday that blocked most of the crackdown hours before its enactment, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," Pearce said.

Pearce said that part of Judge Susan Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws.

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

She has vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Illegals Running before Law takes Effect

.
Reuter's sympathetic view uses the term "Migrant" rather than "Illegal Immigrant" and focuses on self-righteous slants rather than the true reason many are leaving; ie, they have family members that are involved in crime and they know they might easily be picked up. Being "cornered" as one person puts it, can only happen if one is doing things they shouldn't. 

Migrants sell up and flee Arizona ahead of crackdown 
By Tim Gaynor

PHOENIX | Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:43pm EDT

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/

"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."

LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE

Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.

The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.

Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.

Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.

A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.

The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.

While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.

Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.

"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to the shops."

Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.

"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
.

No Ruling Yet After AZ Immigration Hearings

.

Printed from: http://www.kfiam640.com   

Two federal court hearings in Phoenix have ended without a ruling on whether the state's new immigration law should take effect amid a flurry of legal challenges.

The second of two hearings Thursday concluded without U.S. Judge Susan Bolton issuing a ruling.

The afternoon hearing focused on whether state law is trumped by the federal government's constitutional authority to set immigration policy.

During the morning hearing, Bolton said she's required to consider blocking only parts of the law, not the entire statute as some plaintiffs had requested.

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

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was in the packed courtroom in Phoenix fpr the afternoon sesion. Steve Gregory reports most of the protesters in front of the courthouse Thursday morning have gone by the afternoon.


.

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 Pushes for National Standard on Immigration, Urges GOP to Back Overhaul

.

- FoxNews.com, July 01, 2010  

Prodding Republicans to get onboard, President Obama on Thursday called on Congress to tackle a comprehensive immigration overhaul and warned that a failure to do so could trigger a harmful "patchwork" of local laws similar to the one recently passed in Arizona.

While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

"I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward, and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward," Obama said.

The president blamed Republicans for exacerbating the problem. He suggested places like Arizona are unilaterally taking up the issue because GOP senators backed away from immigration reform following the debate several years ago led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Obama blamed political posturing and "demagoguery" for Washington's inability to deal with the problem, pressing Republicans to step up.

"The fact is without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem," Obama said at American University in Washington, D.C.

One of those senators, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told Fox News he wasn't basing his resistance on "demagoguery." He said he's pressing for better border security first because that's what his constituents want.

"It was very political," Kyl said of the speech.

But Obama cast his legislative pitch as an attempt to find middle ground between the two "poles" of the debate. He criticized the idea of granting "blanket amnesty" as well as the idea of deporting all illegal immigrants. Rather, he called for a "pathway to legal status" that would have illegal immigrants get in line and pay a fine.

"The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children," he said.

Obama called for reforms to the legal immigration system and defended the attempts his administration has made so far to improve border security -- though Kyl said it's not enough.

Amid cries for tougher enforcement on one side and leniency on the other, Obama said he hears the "frustration" Americans have expressed about a "system that seems fundamentally broken."

He said that system would be "no exception" to the national challenges he's committed to tackling.

The call to action is a heavy lift for the president, who is keeping Congress' plate overflowing. As he tries pulling a financial regulation package over the finish line and begins implementing provisions of the health care bill, he's also pushing anew for action on a climate package. The speech on immigration follows back-to-back meetings Obama had with advocates and lawmakers at the White House this week.

The controversial Arizona immigration law may have served as the impetus for a stepped-up federal push -- but it also highlighted how critical border-state lawmakers view the enforcement end of the debate.

Republicans have cautioned the president not to push ahead with a comprehensive immigration package until he does more to physically secure the border. And as Obama said, the political reality is that to get a bill he needs Republican support, mostly in the Senate, where Democrats fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP stalling tactics.

Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants, among other things, to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.

Obama's administration has acted to improve border security, including increasing personnel and equipment along the border. Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those troops are to be sent to Arizona.

The Arizona law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person's immigration status if there's reason to believe the individual is in the U.S. illegally. Several states and communities are considering similar legislation, which Obama says is an understandable byproduct of the public's frustration over the federal government's inability to tighten the immigration system.

But Obama also has criticized the law as "misguided" and said it is potentially discriminatory. He has asked the Justice Department to review its legality and immigrant advocates are hoping the government will sue Arizona to block the law from taking effect later this month.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Supporters Donate $500G to Defend Arizona Law

.

- Associated Press, July 08, 2010  

PHOENIX -- Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thusday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and nearly 2,000 came from within Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.

The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.

Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.

Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.

Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.

"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."

Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.

"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.

With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.

Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.

It's unclear what the state's legal costs will be in defending the law. Snell & Wilmer, the Phoenix-based law firm representing the state in the pending challenges, told a federal judge Wednesday that its lawyers were working late into the evening to respond to all the filings in the cases.

Citing the crush of filings in the case, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on the size of so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups in support or opposition to the law.

Brewer hired the private lawyers to represent the state even before the Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, agreed to Brewer's demand to withdraw from the state's defense. He had opposed the legislation but said he was willing to do his duty to defend the state law.
.

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.

.