AZ govener to Obama - We'll see you in court

[spidey07]

You tell him girl. Tell Obama and holder where to stick it. I really hope obummer does take it to court, it will show the country where he really stands, not that we don't know it. He's been remarkably clear.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tial-federal-court-challenge-immigration-law/

Bring it on.

That's the attitude Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is taking toward the possibility that the Obama administration could file a legal challenge to her state's immigration law.

"We'll meet you in court," she said in an interview Tuesday. "I have a pretty good record of winning in court."

 

[IamDavid]

Spend millions of dollars fighting in court over a law that is pretty useless in the fight to secure the border.... We have such great leaders here.......

 

[cubby1223]

Spend millions of dollars fighting in court over a law that is pretty useless in the fight to secure the border.... We have such great leaders here.......

When Obama has a $3.5 trillion budget I doubt he will give a second's thought over a few million to fight Arizona. If Obama believes tearing this country apart will hurt the Republican Party more than it does the Democratic Party, I think he will continue with all he has.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Nice tags to counter the other thread!

Spend millions of dollars fighting in court over a law that is pretty useless in the fight to secure the border.... We have such great leaders here.......

It is no longer about the money or the improved enforcement of federal laws...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Spend millions of dollars fighting in court over a law that is pretty useless in the fight to secure the border.... We have such great leaders here.......

The point is to show that the Feds have no right to tell the states what to do regarding ignoring laws that the Feds refuse to uphold.

States Rights:thumbsup:

If Holder would actually do his job as the AG, then he would tell Obama that attempting to make a political statement in supporting criminal behavior is not going to be upheld by the courts

But Obama and company have already demonstrated that when it comes to illegal behavior, they happily turn a blind eye.

 

[cwjerome]

Spend millions of dollars fighting in court

I agree, what a waste of money to sue and take this law to court.

over a law that is pretty useless in the fight to secure the border....

Nice non-sequitur... The law isn't designed and makes no claim to secure the border. It's meant to make living here illegally uncomfortable and deter illegal immigration into Arizona.

We have such great leaders here.......

Arguable...

 

[CrackRabbit]

The point is to show that the Feds have no right to tell the states what to do regarding ignoring laws that the Feds refuse to uphold.

States Rights:thumbsup:

If Holder would actually do his job as the AG, then he would tell Obama that attempting to make a political statement in supporting criminal behavior is not going to be upheld by the courts

But Obama and company have already demonstrated that when it comes to illegal behavior, they happily turn a blind eye.

I would imagine that Holder is probably examining the law very closely to see if the Federal Government has a case. Especially after embarrassing himself for not reading it.

I personally don't think the law will hold up to a challenge, but I am not a lawyer and could certainly be wrong.

I was looking at a CNN article about the subject and it mentions something that the Fox News one doesn't:

She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/01/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?hpt=C1

So, how would one prove US citizenship to an Arizona LEO if all they have is a drivers license?

 

[Jaskalas]

I personally don't think the law will hold up to a challenge, but I am not a lawyer and could certainly be wrong.

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted, and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.

The SCOTUS already ruled more than five years ago that there is no requirement to checking immigration status. This is applicable to the entire nation, let alone Arizona.

Arizona's law, thus, has already been the law of the nation for over five years. It is really nothing more than a state reaffirmation of what already exists.

 

[Zebo]

The SCOTUS already ruled more than five years ago that there is no requirement to checking immigration status. This is applicable to the entire nation, let alone Arizona.

Arizona's law, thus, has already been the law of the nation for over five years. It is really nothing more than a state reaffirmation of what already exists.

Wiki might be wrong. Cornell says opposite

2. The officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary appears premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to so question Mena. However, this Court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2—4). Pp. 7—8.

No requirement just mean it's not required but not that it can not be done.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html

 

[nyker96]

I don't think it's worth the money to sue over this law. brewer's rhetoric is just election year stuff.

 

[irishScott]

I would think Arizona would have expected this and has probably been preparing for it since before the Governor made it law. Of course, I could be giving our leaders' foresight too much credit...

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Pretty sure the feds will kill the law.

1) They have more power than ever before and can get away with pretty much anything.
2) It is against the interests of the country, so they will rush to do it.
3) George Bush doesn't care about black people, and Arizona has white people in it and is therefore racist, and latinos are a race, and this law is therefore racist. Don't deny it, racists.
4) The race card exists and is strong.
5) The media will continue to spout that the law is just racism in print instead of ever mentioning what it actually is, so there's no outcry to stop the feds.
6) The feds are the feds.
7) WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't think it's worth the money to sue over this law. brewer's rhetoric is just election year stuff.

I'm not sure what rhetoric you're referring to exactly, as IIRC, the Obama administration was the one beating its chest and mentioning a lawsuit first. She is just responding.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Pretty sure the feds will kill the law.

1) They have more power than ever before and can get away with pretty much anything.
2) It is against the interests of the country, so they will rush to do it.
3) George Bush doesn't care about black people, and Arizona has white people in it and is therefore racist, and latinos are a race, and this law is therefore racist. Don't deny it, racists.
4) The race card exists and is strong.
5) The media will continue to spout that the law is just racism in print instead of ever mentioning what it actually is, so there's no outcry to stop the feds.
6) The feds are the feds.
7) WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!

lolwut?

 

[RedCOMET]

5) The media will continue to spout that the law is just racism in print instead of ever mentioning what it actually is, so there's no outcry to stop the feds.

Well that has been the media's plan all along. they can't attack the AZ bill on its merits, so they launch a smear campaign instead.

Its going to be great to see that the law is upheld in court.. then the AZ Gov. needs to send the media pundits and other air heads a nice warm cup of STFU.

 

[Thump553]

PT Barnum said you can't fool all the people all the time, but there are sure a lot of suckers here fooled by the AZ governor's publicity stunt. Kudos to her for scamming so many (including most posters here) with her cynical stunt of signing a patently unconstitional statute. She gets free media attention and all the costs of her campaign are paid by the state of AZ.

 

[zsdersw]

I think spidey needs to learn how to spell governor.

 

[spidey07]

I think spidey needs to learn how to spell governor.

I'm in the south. That's the correct phonetic spelling.

Guv-en-er

 

[zsdersw]

I'm in the south.

No doubt.

 

[rudder]

PT Barnum said you can't fool all the people all the time, but there are sure a lot of suckers here fooled by the AZ governor's publicity stunt. Kudos to her for scamming so many (including most posters here) with her cynical stunt of signing a patently unconstitional statute. She gets free media attention and all the costs of her campaign are paid by the state of AZ.

Unconsitutional? Nashville has been doing this exact thing for over 2 years now... there has not been a single constitutional challenge brought against the program here. Why hasn't the Federal government spoken out about this law? Maybe because the mayor and governer are democrats? Maybe because the program is so successful it has allowed the deportation of over 5,000 criminals?

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/memorandumsofAgreementUnderstanding/davidsoncountysheriffsoffice.pdf




Basically the sheriffs department here can act as Immigration enforcement officers. Granted it is a little different than the Arizona law. All people taken into custody in Nashville will have their immigration status checked. Whereas AZ if there is a suspicion that someone who was involved in a criminal act is an illegal, that person can have their status checked.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=8061272

http://terryfrank.net/?p=3128&cpage=1

http://www.gorena.org/pdf/287g-arrestsshine.pdf

etc. Lot of good criminals are now off Nashville streets.

 

[ayabe]

I'm in the south. That's the correct phonetic spelling.

Guv-en-er

*cough* Texas *cough*

Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).

http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/

Is Brewer going play the victim card and tell the court that her dad died fighting Nazi's?

 

[peonyu]

Pretty sure the feds will kill the law.

1) They have more power than ever before and can get away with pretty much anything.
2) It is against the interests of the country, so they will rush to do it.
3) George Bush doesn't care about black people, and Arizona has white people in it and is therefore racist, and latinos are a race, and this law is therefore racist. Don't deny it, racists.
4) The race card exists and is strong.
5) The media will continue to spout that the law is just racism in print instead of ever mentioning what it actually is, so there's no outcry to stop the feds.
6) The feds are the feds.
7) WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!

Except... theres no such thing as a Latino race. Its a culture and not a race. Sammy Sosa is as hispanic as anyone who border hops, yet hes a blackman. And there are plenty of white latinos [Ricky martin, Penelepe Cruz etc]. Gotta love it when people dont know what they talk about.

 

[Bateluer]

<Arizona resident

I didn't see anywhere in this thread where it was mentioned that some 75&#37; to 90% of Arizona residents are in favor of 1070.

Also, how many people in here have read the bill? I have, and while its extremely dense legalese, its only 10 pages long. And 6 to 7 of those pages deal with businesses who hire illegal immigrants. Properly enforced, the bill will do exactly what its intended to do, make being an illegal immigrant in the state of Arizona extremely difficult and problematic.

And since basically the same law is also enacted in California and Massachusetts, as well as mirroring Federal law, I'm pretty sure it will easily stand up to a court challenge. Court challenges would be a complete waste of tax payer money.

If the Federal government wants to actually address the problem, they'd do their damn job and secure the border, and not with a token gesture of some National Guard troops. That's a complete joke, it equates to something like 1 soldier every 5 miles.

 

[classy]

I open OB 5 to 1 over the governor. Knockout by the 4th round.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Except... theres no such thing as a Latino race. Its a culture and not a race. Sammy Sosa is as hispanic as anyone who border hops, yet hes a blackman. And there are plenty of white latinos [Ricky martin, Penelepe Cruz etc]. Gotta love it when people dont know what they talk about.

I am sorry that I am not as racist as you. Next time I'll do a bunch of research on a topic that I don't give a shit about.