• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton drops immigration bombshell: Feds will sue Arizona

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,745
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hillary Clinton drops immigration bombshell: Feds will sue Arizona

The Obama administration is suing Arizona over its immigration law?

If that’s news to you, it’s because such a lawsuit hasn’t been announced by the Justice Department.

But why should DOJ handle such news when Hillary Clinton could take care of it while talking to a local TV reporter in Ecuador?

Crazy? Nope. Sounds like Secretary Clinton didn’t get the right talking points.

"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks the federal government should be determining immigration policy," Clinton told the reporter (video below).

"The Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act," she blabbed.

Guess who's not happy. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

"To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous," she said in a statement. "If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."
Hillary Clinton drops immigration bombshell: Feds will sue Arizona | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Why sue Arizona when most Americans and most Arizonans support this law?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why sue Arizona when most Americans and most Arizonans support this law?
Because Arizona has no right to set its own foreign policy, regardless of its level of popular support.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,513
Reaction score
32,268
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Guess who's not happy. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

"To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous," she said in a statement. "If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."
why is it incumbent on the federal government to give heads up to the state?
i do not recall the state of arizona being concerned about the implications of its law on the federal sector ... so why would the state expect consideration it did not itself render?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,901
Reaction score
50,824
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It really is not a surprise, the administration has made it clear they planned on challenging the law in court. The courts is the appropriate place to challenge the law.
 

Areopagitican

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
231
Location
University of San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Any idea what they are charging? The quote in the article indicates that they believe the Federal government should be dictating immigration policy, but isn't the Arizona law only getting itself in line with the Federal law?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
24,082
Reaction score
8,700
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because Arizona has no right to set its own foreign policy, regardless of its level of popular support.
Question. Have you read the law? It does not set policy. The Feds have already done that. It gives local LE the ability to detain/arrest illegal’s, but only after a legal stop and reasonable suspicion to check status.
What part of coming into the US illegal is breaking a Federal Law don't you understand? It is a shame that this administration and past administrations have ignored border security for so long.

Also, if Hilary's comment is true, what does it say about the administration that does not have the courtesy, to contact the Governor first. IMO, it’s pretty gutless.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There laws were changed to reflect federal law, how is that considered setting foreign policy?
Arizona is not responsible for enforcing federal laws; that is the federal government's prerogative to enforce (or not enforce) them.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Question. Have you read the law? It does not set policy. The Feds have already done that. It gives local LE the ability to detain/arrest illegal’s, but only after a legal stop and reasonable suspicion to check status.
What part of coming into the US illegal is breaking a Federal Law don't you understand? It is a shame that this administration and past administrations have ignored border security for so long.
Arizona is not responsible for enforcing federal laws.

mike2810 said:
Also, if Hilary's comment is true, what does it say about the administration that does not have the courtesy, to contact the Governor first. IMO, it’s pretty gutless.
Meh, I don't really care. Whether or not they go through the motions of courtesy is irrelevant to the substance of the issue, and doesn't really change anything.
 

Areopagitican

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
231
Location
University of San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Arizona is not responsible for enforcing federal laws; that is the federal government's prerogative to enforce (or not enforce) them.
But isn't it illegal for a state to have a law that conflicts with a Federal law? If there's a Federal law saying "segregation is bad," you can't have a law that goes "segregation is neutral." In the same sense, you can't have a Federal law that says "illegal immigration is illegal" and a state law that says "illegal immigration is neutral."
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,901
Reaction score
50,824
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Also, if Hilary's comment is true, what does it say about the administration that does not have the courtesy, to contact the Governor first. IMO, it’s pretty gutless.
The administration has made it clear it plans to challenge the law for some time.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
24,082
Reaction score
8,700
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because Arizona has no right to set its own foreign policy, regardless of its level of popular support.
Explain how what Arizona has done is foreign policy?
Then please explain to me California, Oklahoma, and other states that have laws against illegals? Should not the Feds be going after them also? Better yet, guess its time the State of Arizona sue the Federal Govt. for failing to enforce the federal law regarding illegal entry?

It will be up to the courts to decide: However, I think Az may be ok.
http://www.cis.org/StateEnforcement-LocalEnforcement
Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.
 
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Because Arizona has no right to set its own foreign policy, regardless of its level of popular support.
Except, this isn't foreign policy. It is nothing more than legislation that requires, by law, that Arizona authorities enforce the existing Federal Law.

The Federal government doesn't have the right to sue a state for enforcing the Federal government's own laws. That's idiotic.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,513
Reaction score
32,268
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Except, this isn't foreign policy. It is nothing more than legislation that requires, by law, that Arizona authorities enforce the existing Federal Law.

The Federal government doesn't have the right to sue a state for enforcing the Federal government's own laws. That's idiotic.
if that was the extent of it then i can find no reason why the federal government would move this issue to a federal jusrisdiction
apparently the U.S. government does recognize a provision of the arizona law which is inconsistent with federal law
 

bicycleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
945
Location
Old Virginny
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
if that was the extent of it then i can find no reason why the federal government would move this issue to a federal jusrisdiction
apparently the U.S. government does recognize a provision of the arizona law which is inconsistent with federal law
I think you're giving Krewe Obama waaaay too much credit, here.

The #1 motivation for sueing Arizona over the AZ immigration law, is to win the Hispanic vote.
 

Redbeard

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama & company have yet to define what is specifically *misguided* about the AZ SB 1070 bill. They may wait for someone else (ACLU perhaps) to file, then file a *friend of the court* motion. Basically hitching a ride on the original filers (whomever they may be) coat tails.

Mike2810: Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point.
Yes, there is an abundance of case law both at the State & Federal levels. Besides the ones you quotes there are others as well. United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.....United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 2005: D.C. No. 98-40116-02-RDR Dist. Kan.) United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.....Gray v City of Valley Park, 2008: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.....Astrid G. Estrada....February 10, 2010; United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
AZ is well covered with case law.

ICE setup a training program for state and local LE agencies.
Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g)
Immigration and Nationality Act
A Law Enforcement Partnership
ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) provides local law enforcement agencies an opportunity to team with ICE to combat specific challenges in their communities. (snippet)
Their website is here Partners Many AZ officers took the training. Gov. Brewer had mentioned a training agenda for other officers as well. This has been well thought out and is quite evident most officers will be knowledgeable as what to look for.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,901
Reaction score
50,824
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So you list a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with the grounds that the Arizona law is going to be challenged under. This is supposed to prove something?
 

Redbeard

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mike2810: Better yet, guess its time the State of Arizona sue the Federal Govt. for failing to enforce the federal law regarding illegal entry?
You have a point there. Something along the lines of *Failing to secure our borders from foreign invaders*.
 

Redbeard

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So you list a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with the grounds that the Arizona law is going to be challenged under. This is supposed to prove something?
So you didn't read them.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,901
Reaction score
50,824
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

Redbeard

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The WH has yet to define the grounds of any chanllenge. They would be setting themselves up as comedians if the try to use *misguided* as grounds.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,901
Reaction score
50,824
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The WH has yet to define the grounds of any chanllenge. They would be setting themselves up as comedians if the try to use *misguided* as grounds.
You need to get better informed. Justice Department poised to challenge Arizona immigration law - Los Angeles Times

Top Justice Department officials have drafted a legal challenge asserting that Arizona's controversial immigration law is unconstitutional because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders, sources said Wednesday.
The Wednesday mentioned was in May by the way, which kinda disproves the whole "no one told us" claim in the OP.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
24,082
Reaction score
8,700
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So you list a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with the grounds that the Arizona law is going to be challenged under. This is supposed to prove something?
I was responding to post 8. A comment was made that AZ has no right to enforce Federal law. So my post is valid. Guess we will have to see what the courts say.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,901
Reaction score
50,824
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I was responding to post 8. A comment was made that AZ has no right to enforce Federal law. So my post is valid. Guess we will have to see what the courts say.
Your cases as best I could see did not address that issue. You are right though that we will have to wait and see what the courts say.
 
Top Bottom