It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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.
Gov. Jan Brewer slammed the U.S. government saying the suit is a "massive waste of taxpayer funds."
"It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels," she said in a prepared statement. "Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice."
She went on to say, "the irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials."
In the suit, which names the state of Arizona as well as Brewer as defendants, the Justice Department claims the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law "disrupts" that balance. It urges the U.S. District Court in Arizona to "preliminarily and permanently" prohibit the state from enforcing the law, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the month.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Originally posted by WXBackdoor
I don't like the Feds , but i do support them on this one.
Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by Wayne60
The Feds seem to be treating this like a Treaty. When you read S.B. 1070 it just allows local and state LE to enforce the text of the federal immigration law.
I think the Dems/liberals know that they need the Hispanic vote to win.
S.B. 1070 is clear you have to be suspected of commiting a crime before you can be asked about your citizenship. There also has to be reason to beleive you my not be here in the US legally. ie: no form of legal ID.
Originally posted by WXBackdoor
EXample - "i would love to walk around my town without the harassment of policeman , and the fear of just because i look like an Immigrant , i will be stopped and harassed by the police , I'm a citizen for god sake!!"
Hypocrisy all around , and it's disgusting , just look at the INTERPOL coming to the USA thread , one poster gave the argument "if you are not a criminal , you have nothing to worry about" , and everybody who supports the AZ law was against that argument (citing that Ben Franklin quote to oppose it)