PDA

View Full Version : Arizona Immigration Law: Backers are Hopeful After Court Hearing




FrankRep
07-23-2010, 10:31 AM
Arizona immigration law: Backers are Hopeful After Court Hearing (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0723/Arizona-immigration-law-Backers-are-hopeful-after-court-hearing)

A federal judge heard a Justice Department case against the new Arizona immigration law Thursday. The questions she asked of both sides may hint at how she may rule.


CS Monitor
July 23, 2010


Six days before Arizona’s new immigration law is set to take effect, the fate of the controversial legislation rests with a federal judge who on Thursday heard from Obama administration lawyers seeking to stop its enactment.

Although Judge Susan Bolton made no ruling after a 90-minute hearing in which Justice Department attorneys argued that the law interferes with federal powers, some of her remarks led backers and opponents of the law to draw their own conclusions.

"I’m optimistically hopeful that if not all, almost all of this law is going to survive,” says state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican who helped sponsor the legislation that has sparked criticism and several economic boycotts.

Phoenix attorney Antonio Bustamante told demonstrators gathered outside, amid a heavy police presence, that it seemed as if the judge might let stand a portion of the law that requires local and state authorities to determine whether a person is in the country illegally. “That’s the most egregious,” he says.

The Justice Department was the third argued before the judge concerning Arizona's law. It is one of seven suits filed by individuals and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union. Critics contend the law is unconstitutional and will lead to racial profiling.

In arguing for an injunction to halt the law from taking effect, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority to enforce immigration law. Arizona’s new law would create a burden for federal enforcement and raise serious concerns with respect to human rights and foreign policy, he said.

He called the state law “an unprecedented package of enforcement measure … in explicit disagreement with the federal government.”

The state’s attorney, John Bouma, argued that the new statute is consistent with federal law and deals with immigration matters affecting Arizona that the federal government neglects. He noted that even President Obama acknowledges the system is broken.

Granting an injunction to block enforcement of the law would harm Arizona, Mr. Bouma said, and is not in the public interest.

Throughout the hearing, Judge Bolton fired a flurry of questions and comments that hinted at her thought process. At one point she asked Mr. Kneedler why Arizona cannot be as inhospitable as it wants toward those who enter the US illegally. And to Bouma she pointed out that the removal process of someone with illegal status is a “complex, highly litigated determination” that a federal immigration judge makes.

Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who in April signed the law creating several state crimes related to immigration, watched the proceedings in the crowded courtroom and later told reporters she felt confident the state would prevail.

The judge adjourned the hearing Thursday afternoon without saying when she will rule. Whenever her decision comes down, it is likely to have major implications – including whether other states will move to adopt similar legislation.

Outside the courtroom, opponents of the statute vowed to stage acts of civil disobedience whether or not the law is implemented July 29. “Do not work! Do not buy! Do not comply!” read fliers distributed to the crowd. Police arrested seven demonstrators who held a giant banner and blocked traffic at a busy intersection.

Jose Luis Hernandez, who stood in front of the courthouse with his family, says he hopes the judge quashes the law because it targets people on the basis of their appearance. “I’m a legal resident, but people like me will get stopped,” says Mr. Hernandez, who came here from Mexico two decades ago.

Backers of the Arizona law also held demonstrations, holding signs that showed support for cracking down on illegal immigration.

Bryan Berkland, who says he is a "tea party" movement member, expressed disdain for the federal government’s suit. “It’s completely unfounded,” he says.

He favors the law to get a handle on illegal immigration and says the statute has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

“Illegal is illegal – it’s breaking the law,” Mr. Berkland says. “And this is a nation of laws.”


SOURCE:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0723/Arizona-immigration-law-Backers-are-hopeful-after-court-hearing

FrankRep
07-23-2010, 10:36 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/2605-coverstory.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/subscriptions.html)



As the Obama administration continues prosecuting its lawsuit against Arizona, several sister states are coming to the aid of Arizona’s sovereignty by filing briefs of support for the Grand Canyon State. by Joe Wolverton, II


Nine States Ride to the Defense of Arizona vs. the Federal Government (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4085-nine-states-ride-to-the-defense-of-arizona)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Tuesday, 20 July 2010


As the Obama administration continues prosecuting its lawsuit against Arizona, several sister states are coming to the aid of Arizona’s sovereignty by filing briefs of support for the Grand Canyon State.

As reported by The New American, Attorney General Eric Holder filed suit on behalf of the Justice Department against the state of Arizona seeking to enjoin the enforcement of SB 1070, the anti-illegal immigration law signed on April 23 by Governor Jan Brewer and set to go into legal effect on July 29.

Several self-proclaimed protectors of civil rights have filed suit against Governor Brewer and the state of Arizona, but the suit brought by the President’s own administration attracts the most attention because of the constitutional question at the core of the matter: Does a state have the right to protect itself from invasion by millions of illegal immigrants or is the solving of such a problem within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government?

The Obama suit, as well as the various other challenges to SB 1070, have garnered a curious claque of supporters. On June 22, Mexico filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of one of the lawsuits currently pending in federal court challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070.

The brief pleads with the court to declare the law unconstitutional and asserts that the country has material legal standing as its own interests and rights are at stake if the law is permitted to go into effect as scheduled.

Specifically, the Mexican lawyers insist that the interest in having "consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state." Furthermore, the brief warns that if the law is put into practice, then the rights of Mexican citizens will be violated as a result of "racial profiling" that will accompany the enforcement of the law.

In the wake of the federal judge’s decision to accept Mexico’s brief, seven other Latin American countries have filed similar documents expressing support for a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru filed separate but nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.

A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing on July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions, which were filed late last week.

Arizona is not without its allies in this battle, however. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has filed a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, who is running for Governor of Michigan, announced last week that Michigan is leading several other states into the legal fray on the side of Arizona. Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia, have joined Michigan in the amicus brief filed with the federal District Court.

In a statement to the press, Attorney General Cox, one of five Republicans running for Governor in Michigan, says that the states are authorized to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders. He insisted that under the federal government’s theory, “There is no cooperative effort on immigration but only a one-way street where states lose control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law.”

Arizona is preparing to defend herself against the many legal challenges to its law. Governor Brewer steadfastly defends the constitutionality of her state’s approach to the problem of illegal immigration and is personally passing the hat, seeking financial support for what is sure to be an expensive defense of states’ rights.

One of Governor Brewer’s principal sources of funds to pay legal fees is the Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund. To date, the fund has collected over $1 million from supporters nationwide.

Despite the encouraging rate of donations, Brewer laments the need for such efforts. She has decried the Obama administration's lawsuit as a “massive waste of taxpayer funds” and rightly asserted that this money would be better allocated to fighting the “violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.”

The state's central defense against the federal complaint is that it is not usurping federal authority, rather it is reluctantly filling a void caused by years of federal disregard to the hordes of invaders (armed and unarmed) swarming across the desert and into the private land of Arizona’s ranchers.

Arizona’s attorneys assert that SB 1070 is not new law, per se, rather it is but a amalgamation of the slate of similar immigration laws enacted by Arizona and other states and local governments across the nation in recent years in response to the geometric expansion of illegal immigrants throughout the country.

This is not Arizona’s first rodeo, so to speak. In 2007, Arizona passed a much-criticized law that heavily fined businesses found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants. The constitutionality of this law was also challenged in federal court and so far it has withstood the scrutiny. A federal District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld the 2007 law, and the U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear the challenge this year.

Regardless of the outcome of the federal government’s suit against Arizona, the Justice Department lawyers will not rest any time soon because, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in the 50 states have passed 353 immigration-related laws in 2009 and more than three times that amount have been filed this year.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4085-nine-states-ride-to-the-defense-of-arizona

John Taylor
07-23-2010, 10:45 AM
Good on them for exercising their 10th amendment powers.

FrankRep
07-23-2010, 10:47 AM
Keep Arizona Safe!
http://www.keepazsafe.com/




In response to the July 6 announcement that the federal government was suing the State of Arizona over its Senate Bill 1070, due to go into effect July 29, donations have been pouring into the state for its defense. by Mary McHugh


$500,000: Donations From Other States Being Made to Arizona Defense Fund (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3986-donations-from-other-states-being-made-to-az-defense-fund)


Mary McHugh | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 09 July 2010


On July 6, the federal government announced it was suing (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3967-us-v-arizona-the-feds-sue-arizona-over-sb-1070) the State of Arizona over its Senate Bill 1070, due to go into effect July 29. This bill is part of Arizona’s efforts to defend itself against the illegal immigration pouring over its southern border shared with Mexico, and the multitude of problems and dangers this has ensued both locally and nationally.

In the wake of the government’s announcement, a defense fund originally set up through executive order by Gov. Jan Brewer on May 26 immediately began amassing thousands of dollars from concerned parties of all 50 states, plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. The total donated as of Thursday morning was about $500,000, with $330,000 arriving between July 6-8 alone; 7,008 of the 9,057 total online contributions since May were also made during this time period, with an estimated 88 percent of the fund’s (https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/index.xhtml) total donations coming from these online contributors. Generally, the contributions were small, from between $5 to $2,000, and many of those donating were retirees. One concerned contributor, Mary Ann Rohde from Rialto, California, stated, "Arizona needs our help. It's a disgrace what our government is doing." She and her husband donated $20. According to the Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/supporters-donate-k-defend-arizona-law/):



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.


The attorney fees are estimated to be about $450 per hour. And though Goddard, who is also a candidate for Governor, “said the law as finally amended was legally defensible,” he did eventually step down in order to avoid undertaking a separate court battle with Governor Brewer. There were concerns among Arizona state lawmakers that Goddard would not support S.B. 1070 well, and they therefore gave Brewer authority to move ahead with spearheading its defense.

An article in the Herald (http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/07/09/brewer-s-defense-fund-amasses-nearly-500000) of Sierra Vista, Aarizona, commented, “If the pace of donations are an indication, the decision Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Justice to file its own lawsuit has resulted in an outpouring of support for Brewer.” It added that after the $100,000 sent in by Arizona’s own citizens, the second and third largest contributions as of Thursday were from California and Texas.

One contributor from Georgia sent $20 to help Arizona defend its new immigration law, “Because our president is stupid.’’ There indeed is concern and anger throughout the country about the President’s approach to border security and the defense of the United States. The intentions of he and his administration are under considerable question.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3986-donations-from-other-states-being-made-to-az-defense-fund

---

Nearly Half a Million Dollars Pledged by Americans to Fight DOJ Lawsuit Against Arizona (http://www.infowars.com/nearly-half-a-million-dollars-pledged-by-americans-to-fight-doj-lawsuit-against-arizona/)

Infowars.com | July 9, 2010

FrankRep
07-23-2010, 09:04 PM
Tensions Run High Inside and Outside SB1070 Courtroom

YouTube - Tensions Run High Inside and Outside SB1070 Courtroom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oslxAr1K9eo)

Dianne
07-23-2010, 09:35 PM
It's the evil fed machine versus states rights... Whether you like the topic of the lawsuit or not, you better damn sure pray Arizona (THE STATE OF) wins.