« Reply to: Liberal-Libertarian Breakthrough by Taplin | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog | Let's Play a Game: The Latest Great Satan From the Democrats »
U.S. DOJ Case: Lawsuit Against Arizona SB 1070
For your edification . . .DATED: July 6, 2010
Tony West
Assistant Attorney General
Dennis K. Burke
United States Attorney
Arthur R. Goldberg
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
Varu Chilakamarri (NY Bar #4324299)
Joshua Wilkenfeld (NY Bar #4440681)
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel. (202) xxx-xxxx/Fax (202) xxx-xxxx
varudhini.chilakamarri@xxxxx.xxx
Attorneys for the United States
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
The United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity,
Defendants.
No. ________________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, the United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
2. In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws. In administering these laws, the federal agencies balance the complex - and often competing - objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy. Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.
3. Despite the preeminent federal authority and responsibility over immigration, the State of Arizona recently enacted S.B. 1070, a sweeping set of provisions that are designed to "work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens" by making "attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona." See S.B. 1070 (as amended by H.B. 2162). S.B. 1070's provisions, working in concert and separately, seek to deter and punish unlawful entry and presence by requiring, whenever practicable, the determination of immigration status during any lawful stop by the police where there is "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is unlawfully present, and by establishing new state criminal sanctions against unlawfully present aliens. The mandate to enforce S.B. 1070 to the fullest extent possible is reinforced by a provision allowing for any legal resident of Arizona to collect money damages by showing that "any official or agency . . . [has] adopt[ed] or implement[ed] a policy" that "limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws . . . to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."
4. S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal - "attrition" - and ignores the many other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system. And even in pursuing attrition, S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070's mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070's "attrition through enforcement" approach. It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States' relationship with Mexico and other countries.
5. The United States understands the State of Arizona's legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation's borders. The federal government, moreover, welcomes cooperative efforts by states and localities to aid in the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. But the United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy - a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government. Accordingly, S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.
==================================
JURISDICTION AND VENUE, PARTIES, and STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM continues at:
http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e14/5025896.0.pdf
DATED: July 6, 2010
==================================
~OGD~
Advertisement
Ya' know . . .
This sure is a whole hell of a lot of time, energy and money being spent so some political hacks in Arizona, in addition to other Red-states can hang their hats on it to be elected and /or re-elected come November.
Now ... I have a feeling that our Cafe friend Resistance will be coming in to rant and rave about the particulars from ground zero there in Assirona.
~OGD~
July 8, 2010 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies”
(BOO HOO the Federal government feels so burdened when required to fulfill it's responsibilites to the States.)
"charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme,"
(YES they were charged with enforcing and they failed, as they intended it to fail because it was part of their scheme to ignore the enforcement aspects of the previously enacted immigration policy.)
"diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens
who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority"
Now what dangeous aliens would that be, considering the FED has no clue who crossed the border illegally?
"targets as its top enforcement priority"
BS, intended to deflect from what is really occurring, Token service intended to enfeeble the enforcement of the law
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#31
“Who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens?”
ALIENS
15 “Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens?”
The will of the people, was that the first amnesty was given and that the law would be enforced.
Now because some group decided it doesn’t like the deliberated compromise assuring enforcement, doing all it can to exert political pressure, so that the explicit will of the people at the time would be ignored, to be enfeebled., TO BE OBSTRUCTED
16 “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.”
OBSTRUCTION, bogus excuses intended to nullify the Feds responsibility.
The Fed only giving lip service to enforcment and then denying the States the rights the Constitution guarantees. “the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
17 “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;”
If the Federal government is to feeble to to withstand the political pressure, then why shouldn’t the State of Arizona actively assure to to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. (American citizens?)
19 “Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.”
The Federal Government has deliberately been enfeebled in the administation of the law.
While President Calderona can bad mouth America in order to enact his vison of America
Foreign influence?
24 “It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
“Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
July 8, 2010 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This sure is a whole hell of a lot of time, energy and money being spent so some political hacks in Arizona,"
For some maybe.
On what side of the issue are you when it comes to slavery?
Are so many of you blind, to the reality that Companies want cheap labor,
They promote the idea that these immigrants will do work Americans won't do, but they fail to tell us ......THAT CHEAP
If the government had done it's job and had regulated the banking industry, so as to protect against this financial calamity, I doubt the immigration issue would be as heated.
IMO, the American labor movement as a viable political movement is under assault. Cheap labor is not what the American workforce needs, at this time.
The American labor movment helped develop Immigration and Customs enforcement, only to see our gains eroded.
Cheap labor will not provide the tax base we need, to support programs we want.
July 8, 2010 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee ... Just like clockwork . . .
The incoherent rant and rave of a citizen of the Valley of the Sun . . .
Somebody get a cool wet towel for that boiling head.
~OGD~
July 8, 2010 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you complaining about a state's attempt to pass/enforce something which closely mirrors the federal law?
July 8, 2010 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it isn't within the power of the states to do so. Or at least that's one of my big problems with it.
Not only that, but it doesn't really mirror federal law that well. I'm somewhere between the "Yay! Anchor babies and open borders rock!" crowd and 'ole Resistance up there who seems to think that if you disagree with Federal policy or it's implementation, a state can unilaterally redefine the nature of Federal authority. My time in Las Vegas certainly gave me a pretty decent perspective on the extent and nature of the problems. But this law is a horrible precedent and terribly designed legislation to boot.
I am kind of glad it's coming to a head though. I'd be amazed if an injunction isn't granted, which should knock most similar clown-ass legislation back until the issue is resolved. This should meander all the way to the SC, putting the whole rush to nonsense on hold for a bit. In the long run, AZ going so far over the top could will prove a fatal blow to many less dramatic ordinances that the DoJ would likely not have elected to take a political risk in pursuing. Which to me is somewhat ironic.
We need to address the issue responsibly on a national level. Not as a easy-to-mine source of electioneering demagoguery for local politicians trading in xenophobia and half-truth.
July 8, 2010 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because it isn't within the power of the states to do so."
Let's rephrase that to: Because is IS within the power of the federal government to do so. Yet for years and years, democratic administrations & republican administrations, the feds refuse to enforce federal law. And that is my problem.
By not enforcing the law the feds have relinquished that designated power.
July 8, 2010 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds good. But that's not how it works.
You don't like how the federal government is carrying out it's mandate. I don't either. But it turns out that just because you don't like the way things have been implemented, a state or local government can't just unilaterally declare a constitutionally designated federal power relinquished.
July 8, 2010 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it! If the Federal government desires to be uninvolved in some area but does not want the states to be active, it can just pass some law and then fail to enforce it! It's a way to effectively block action by all levels of government. Brilliant! So we pass a law regulating carbon emissions, then let all the companies know that we're really not looking into it and sue any states that try to clean up pollution because that's "our business."
July 9, 2010 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey WPE . . .
You don't recall attempting to intervene against California implementing tighter pollution standards by stating it was the feds duty in the Clean Air Act? How well did that work?
~OGD~
July 9, 2010 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, we're not talking about a law here. We are talking about a constitutional power.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The power is specifically granted to federal legislature.
July 9, 2010 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
AZ's not trying to redefine citizenship. It is attempting to find some legal means to prevent illegal entry of non citizens.
July 9, 2010 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
“'ole Resistance up there who seems to think that if you disagree with Federal policy or it's implementation, a state can unilaterally redefine the nature of Federal authority”
What Federal policy are you referring to?
What I see is what G Washington warned about
17 “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,
Immigration laws, Federal policies to be ignored by illegal' and they’re supporters, because they disagreed and they decided to "unilaterally redefine the nature of Federal authority."
To obstruct…. with the real design to direct, control, counteract….. what had already been deliberated years ago, when the first amnesty was implemented
The Open border crowd got it’s amnesty and never intended to allow the enforcement aspect of the law. They have done everything to obstuct and counteract.
Obama and Holder are the tools and dupes?
July 8, 2010 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You realize that the words of G. Washington are completely irrelevant in a legal setting, right?
You are talking politics and policy. You'd like to see a more aggressive ejection policy, and are pissed that so far it hasn't materialized. That part is fair enough. But it doesn't change the venue in which you need to fight and win the policy debate. That venue is Federal.
IANAL, but I will be quite surprised if the courts will allow those who are unhappy with the current implementations to bypass this debate though unilateral action at the state or municipal level.
It's not my choice. I'm just observing how I see reality works.
July 8, 2010 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
“You realize that the words of G. Washington are completely irrelevant in a legal setting, right?”
No I see G Washington as a warning, of how factions will try to overthrow the laws of our country. G Washington described the methods that would be used, that is relevant.
“You are talking politics and policy.”
Why of course I am. The whole immigration issue is based upon policies the American people through representation government enacted, to do the will of the people. I am sorry you don’t like the laws.
“You'd like to see a more aggressive ejection policy, and are pissed that so far it hasn't materialized.”
You don’t know me, so your smears are intended to make me Odious.
I know you’d rather have the citizen’s role over or bend over because old Uncle Sam say’s to.
If Uncle Sam wouldn’t have been such a jerk, there may have been a more civil approach. But Uncle Sam wanted to stick us with the costs of doing what should have been a Federal problem.
So instead of the State of Arizona budgeting for it’s own citizens needs, Arizona had to rob from it’s budget to pay for a Federal problem ignored. Sorry but we in Arizona aren’t picking up the Tab no more.
Uncle Sam lead or get out of the way, since you’d rather ignore the problem, well guess what? Take your problem out of our home. We’re not going to jawbone this anymore
“That part is fair enough”
NO that is not fair enough, as you attempt to slander my intentions.
“But it doesn't change the venue in which you need to fight and win the policy debate.
Except it’s you; that wants to ignore the venue in which to fight and win. Laws were enacted and apparently you don’t like them, and because you can’t get a consensus to return to the table, to negotiate a NEW law, you and others would ignore the laws on the books.
“but I will be quite surprised if the courts will allow those who are unhappy with the current implementations”
YOU got that right. We have an immigration policy; the problem is some people don’t like it
“ to bypass this debate though unilateral action at the state or municipal level. It's not my choice. I'm just observing how I see reality works”.
Here’s reality; the Federal Government has decided to ignore it’s duties and responsibilities and the States are not obligated to put on a pretense that the Government is there to protect and serve.
It was one of the reasons the British Crown was overthrown; they failed to protect the colonists.
Fearful citizens who realize the ineptness of they’re government to provide the most essential part of the right to govern; Securing the Borders.
Absent that, what rights do the governed have in they’re own defense? Arizona will not be the pawn, to be abused or neglected because of the Kings folly.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history ....of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.....
People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
July 8, 2010 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Around and 'round ... the merry-go-round . . .
S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
Why can't Mr. Resistance live among us in peace? If you've ever wondered about the answer to that question, then read on. Let's get down to business: I should note that the last time I heard Resistance rant and ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to put a clog on all attempts to override and circumvent the power of the US Constitution by support S.B. 1070. I feel sorry for the entire human race when I hear crap like that.
I guess I should also point out the following: Resistance would have us believe that he can be trusted to judge for the rest of humanity from his unique perch of his own personal pure wisdom. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that for his own personal take on freedom--the laws established in the US Constitution must be set-aside in order for people like him to personally be more secure and comfortable in his own little xenophobic world? The fact of the matter is that he has never satisfactorily proved any assertion that he's put-forth. He has merely justified his assertions with rambling cut and pasted tracts of wikipedia and such inane utterances as, "Because I said so."
As it stands, Resistance is absolutely determined to believe that society is screaming for his crotchets, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.
And I will repeat: S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.
Let me end this comment by telling Mr Resistance that this action of the Federal government to enjoin the State of Arizona from implementing S.B. 1070 is lawful.
This action is moral.
This action is right.
~OGD~
July 9, 2010 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not within their powers? So if the AZ police see somebody trying to bomb a federal building they must just sit back and watch?
July 9, 2010 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or if a Federal bank gets robbed?
July 9, 2010 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have that right. If anything supporting AZ in this has hurt some politicans in FL. But you can't really call FL a red state.
July 8, 2010 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh??? Wait a dang minute ...
No ... I've always referred to the Sunshine State as the land of swamp gas, sink holes, prehistoric insects, moo-moos, and the flying house debris and lightning strike capital of the United States.
~OGD~
July 8, 2010 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What can you call it?
July 8, 2010 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, right now, the Tar Ball State!!!
July 8, 2010 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Ducky.
July 8, 2010 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mostly, there isn't anything worth saying here. But one thing needs clarifying.
That wasn't intended as a smear. It was an honest attempt at focusing in on what you seem to be angry about/wanting too see based on statements like this:
But after your psycho rant, I don't think even you know what the hell you want. If you aren't saying you want an aggressive identification and deportation program, than what exactly are you advocating? Isn't that what you think the Federal government has been "refusing" to do whenever that racist goat-fucking sadist Arpio demands it?
I have honestly been atypically respectful (for me) throughout this entire exchange - and you come at me like a butthurt teabagger with a victim complex? For what appears to be an accurate characterization of your ultimate complaint? Get a fucking grip - or go fuck yourself.
July 9, 2010 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now. Obviously this goes under the comment where the quotes are from. And also too, also.
July 9, 2010 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dirty mouth
July 9, 2010 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink