Free Markets, Free People


Obama DoJ to take AZ to court over immigration law – Mexico joins suit, AZ Dems scream

That’s right folks, instead of fixing the problem, the Department of Justice, at the behest of President Obama, has chosen to sue a state trying to protect itself.

And guess who thinks it is a good idea and wants to join in the fun?

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country’s own interests and its citizens’ rights are at stake.

Like the “right” to illegally enter another country? When I see Mexico take down its border stations and yell, “come on down” in Spanish, then I might think it has a moral leg to stand on. But in this case, it’s just hypocritical nonsense.

More interesting than even Mexico joining the law suit is the fact that AZ Democrats are livid about the DoJ suit:

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on Monday sent a sharply worded letter to President Barack Obama urging him not to sue.

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.”

Heh … change a few words and he could be talking about the effort in the Gulf.

Mitchell isn’t the only Democrat upset with Obama. Facing tight races in AZ this year, a number of Democrats see this as an unnecessary and even foolish effort by the Obama administration.

“Congresswoman [Gabrielle] Giffords wants more federal agents on the Arizona border, not federal lawyers in court arguing with state lawyers about a law that will do nothing to increase public safety in the communities she represents,” C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for the congresswoman, told The Hill.

Well there’s your bi-partisanship. All in opposition to the administration’s decision to sue AZ.

My favorite quote comes from Democratic Rep. Ann Kilpatrick though:

“I am calling on the president and the attorney general to abandon preparations for a lawsuit against Arizona, and to recommit to finding a national solution to fixing this national problem,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement released Monday. “The administration should focus on working with Arizona to put together a long-term strategy to secure our borders and reform our immigration policy. … The time for talk is over, and the time for action is here.”

With this president, the “time for talk” is never over. And the “time for action?” Well they haven’t sued yet, have they? Or closed Gitmo. Or pulled out of Iraq. Or ended DADT. Or …

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

46 Responses to Obama DoJ to take AZ to court over immigration law – Mexico joins suit, AZ Dems scream

  • Obama – PRESENT!!!

    Such steel in the man!!!

    • This is not a ‘Present’ Moment.  This is quite the opposite.  This is take the Democrat Party and toss it on the dust bin of history moment. 

  • OK Erb, you can add your Talking Points comment to get your 30 pieces of silver.

    • He’d do it for free, he doesn’t believe in capitalism

      • Oh, NO…!!!  Never forget he is nippled up to the tenure teet!  He IS being paid by the Collective to run his little branch of the propaganda organ.  He very likely makes some multiple of the median income, especially with the benies factored in.

  • I would be amazed if Mexico had standing to bring a Constitutional challenge.  But, more interesting is what would happen if the Federal government brought suit against Arizona and lost.  Would they then be forced to enforce Federal law?   What happens if Justice asks for an injunction against Arizona and loses?

    As far as I can tell, the Arizona law is a restatement of Federal law.  It would be a very strange argument for Justice to claim Arizona cannot enforce the Arizona law because the US is not enforcing federal law and might pass comprehensive legislation at some point in the future.  I would anticipate lots of laughter from the court.

    • I was wondering the same thing– what is the potential fallout if the suit is not successful?  From what I can tell, the AZ law is on pretty solid footing.  So that also makes me wonder what the consequences might be if the suit is successful…

    • Funny how there is probably no reciprocity …

      Article 8. Public officials and employees shall respect the exercise of the right of petition, provided it is made in writing and in a peaceful and respectful manner; but this right may only be exercised in political matters by citizens of the Republic.

  • Exxxxxcellent. [spoken in Mr. Burns fashion].
    This can’t be anything BUT good for the coming election cycle…and it won’t be just in Arizona.
    As to the merits of the “case”, speaking as an attorney (whose Con-Law courses are rapidly receding in the rear-view mirror), I literally can’t see any points that I’d be able to assert with a straight face.  States have PLENARY POLICE POWER, and the standard of review is VERY hard on plaintiffs.  Add to that the Feds are essentially seeking a PROSCRIPTIVE ban on enforcement, since it hasn’t even gone into effect, and there CAN’T be evidence of abusive treatment.  I DO look for somebody to dummy up a “catalog of horribles”…very likely the Deemocrats in Phoenix…which will provide civil rights violations with which to work.  It’s been done before now.

  • Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asking supporters for contributions to help prevent the “subpoenas and investigations” that would result from a GOP majority.

    Out of the “fog of politics” reality sets in ?

    • Don’t forget impeachments!  If Baracky really told Senators he refused to do his job and secure the border unless they gave him some political goodies….

      And they should censure Nancy on general principles.

  • Let’s review:
    A State enacts a law, that is copy of Federal Law, because for purely political gain, the Fed won’t enforce the existing law.

    Now the Fed, who’s Constitutional Treason is being exposed to sunlight, tries to sue that State? On what grounds? Refusal to dis-obey the Constitution? Not allowing their innocent citizens to be sacrificed on the alter of Political Correctness?

    Now Mexico, who’s drug-dealing, slave smuggling, corrupt Banditos are suing for the right to commit their crimes under “Constitutional rights”?!?!?!
    Is Øbama in drugs once again, or is he just that much of a “Domestic Enemy of the Constitution” our forefathers warned us against?

    This treasonous action alone is an impeachable offense, not like we needed another to add to our collection of crimes and Misdemeanors.
     

  • Another poor showing of Obama’s diplomatic skills and lack of relationship with world leaders. Otherwise, Mexico’s president would already have spoken with Obama about this, and Obama would have told him not to join the suit.

    • You might assume too much, first that there was no consultation and second that Obama doesn’t want Mexico to join the suit. Where’s the inconsistency in Obama wanting to be on the same side with a foreign country against an American interest?

  • First Obama & Co. blew the Arizona legislation out of proportion as a political play, and now comes the political litigation.

    If only they had read the law before acting out about it.

    But one supposes that is entirely too much to ask of the Chief Executive of the United States.

  • Well they haven’t sued yet, have they? Or closed Gitmo. Or pulled out of Iraq. Or ended DADT. Or …

    But these are all “carrots” … why give up a perfectly good “carrot” when it’s usefulness hasn’t been outlived.
    It was “Hope and Change” … Obama keeps everybody, including the Left, Hoping for the Change they want.

    • I was hoping for some change – got 50 cents?

      Just getting some practice in on my new stimulus created job – panhandler.

  • This is mind-boggling. I sort of understand the logic of stimulating “crises” in order to “not let them go to waste”, but… you can’t be seen doing that! Not while this is still a democracy! Not while the President needs the support of Congress to get anything done still! Not enforcing immigration law so that the only solution is amnesty makes some sort of evil, destroy-the-country-to-get-my-way sense, but forcing the states to not enforce the Fed’s own laws?

    As I said about 30 posts back, I count it a great mercy that the Left managed to elect an incompetent bumbling fool, who has the book learning on how to stimulate crises but doesn’t actually understand the issues involved, doesn’t have the street smarts to actually pull it off.

    My jaw is agape. Talking about this as a bone to the open-borders crowd made some sense, but actually going through with this is nothing but loss for the Administration. What on Earth do they expect to happen‽

  • I’m wondering how many of the 45% of Arizonans who voted for Hope ‘n’ Change are now kicking themselves…

    As for the feds suing AZ… well, not for nothing have they got a wise Latina on the SCOTUS now, eh?

  • You have to remember that the Democrats need immigrants to swell their ranks.  Especially a group they can convince is an oppressed minority and bring under their plantation mentality.  AKA you are vilified as a traitor to your race/ethnicity if you stray from the plantation. 

    They are as barren literally as they are intellectually.  And they aren’t satisfied with legal immigration that favors them already. 

  • Obama is right to stand up for what is in the national interest than to play to the xenophobic emotionalism of the right wing.  It’s interesting how the wall being built in Texas is often opposed by those in the neighborhoods (with friends of the Bush family often being spared the wall near their property), and adds only a few minutes time for those who wish to cross.  There is so much irrational paranoia about Mexicans, and none of this knee jerk xenophobia is doing anything to solve the real issue.   Only true realistic immigration reform will work.   But hey, the xenophobes have an emotional issue they can milk for propaganda purposes.   So what if it does nothing to solve the problem.   Emotion trumps reason on the far right.

    • Shoot, I’ll play…
      First, provide cites for the factual (BS) points you make.  There are several, so make sure you are thorough now.
      Second, how does the Arizona law violate Federal law or anyone’s Constitution rights?

    • yeah, well, you don’t live in Texas – why don’t you give us a report on the Canadians sneaking into the country up there in your neck of the woods around East Moosebridge.

      There’s no xenophobia going on, you’re projecting, AGAIN.   There have been Texicans since the Mexican state of Tejas split away from Mexico.  Texans are perfectly comfortable with Tejanos, the list of ‘Mexicans’ who helped create the country/state of Texas is long and mostly respected by the ‘natives’ here.  What people object too isn’t ‘funny foreigners talkin spanish’ what they object to is ‘illegal immigrants’.   I won’t speak for the other border states, although Arizona seems to see it the same way.  It remains for know-nothings like you trying to tell us what WE think.
      Stick with what you know, as little as that may be.

      • Apparently Hispanic Arizonans are “xenophobes”, too.  Several of the strongest supports of the new law are Hispanic sheriffs, as are some of the strongest supporters of getting control of our border here in Texas.
        Another strong class of supporters are legal immigrants, for reasons so obvious even Erp might get them.
        But, hey, that just screws his talking points to the wall, so…

    • irrational paranoia about Mexicans

      Funny the Mexicans don’t seem to think it’s irrational.

    • So it’s in Obama’s interest to not secure the southern border, and to oppose a law that basically mirrors established federal law?

      Okey doke!

      By the way, I’m dying to know what your idea of  “true realistic immigration reform” is?  WHy don’t you ever stop talking in cliched talking point platitudes for 5 minutes and put your money where your mouth is?

      What’s Scotty Erb’s big plan to reform immigration? And don’t just give me a link to your blog either.

      Put up or shut up time for you.

      GO

    • Scott – you really need to work on your game.  You’ve reduced yourself to name calling.  Amazing how far you’ve fallen really.
      For what it’s worth Scott – I married an immigrant.  Worked our way through the system to citizenship, then worked our way through the system for green cards for mom and dad.  In my house, guess who the biggest fans of the AZ law are… yep, the immigrants.  You are tossing xenophobe about like it’s gonna stick, and I’m here to tell ya, try again.
      Can you explain how enforcing the law as it is currently written is wrong?  And can you please enlighten us as to any possible ‘good’ outcome from this for 0bama?  If he wins this case it will spell doom for Dems in Novembers.  If he loses, he looks bad and states rights are re-enforced.  Either outcome is bad.  Man, are you sure you teach this stuff?

      • Well, you went through the green card process, so of course you want everyone else to “enjoy” it too. Since my foreign born wife also legally immigrated, and did not feel very welcome to the USA during the process, I make sure to explain how the people who come illegally get a much better deal.

    • What willwork is border enforcement combined with internal enforcement. The problem now is that the border is only partially guarded, and once they got past that (and the several internal check points) it is home free.
      As far as the wall is concerned, it is one of Arizona’s problems. The wall was put up elsewhere, so the illegals went where it wasn’t-Arizona. This is evidence that it does work. I can attest to that as well. Once, in Souther CA, the area west of Otay mountain was a mess with illegals and border bandits. The wall fixed that, but pushed the problem east. East of Otay mountain, we had a huge increase in illegals (or wet backs, as we used to call them). Now the wall has been extended, and once again we see few of them. The wall works where it is, and if it was completed it would significantly aid the BP.

      The other thing is cracking down internally. Illegals should be rounded up and sent back. They will start to pack their bags when that happens.

      Of course, since they will vote for Democrats, Obama et al have no incentive to enforce the border.

    • Prof. Erb: As usual, you know little of which you speak. It’s not xenophobic emotionalism; it’s supporting existing law and dealing with a large real problem.

      My New Age, ultra-progressive brother in New Mexico (and our grandmother was Mexican) supports the Arizona law, as do I.

    • I don’t care what nationality they are.  French, Chinese, Mexican & Illegal, gone.

      Its a matter of geography that makes it easiest for Mexicans to cross illegally.  And you want to coin that fact into an accusation of racism.

      So by your logic, we should sue the border patrol for racism since they are showing a deference to Mexican illegals?

      You’re a fucking waste of skin.

       

  • Scott needs to explain what is actually in the “national interest”.  Unless Scott actually does that, he cannot say that Obama is standing up for the national interest.  It would also be interesting to see Scott actually point out examples of the national paranoia he claims.  I have seen no documentation that illegal immigrants are a net financial positive for the the state and local governments.  We know the illegals are costing more than they contribute in taxes.  In fact, at one point Erb actually argued for national health insurance because illegals were being treated in emergency rooms  costing government a lot of money.

    We are seeing drug gangs coming cross border, so that is not “paranoia”.  Arizona is seeing a lot of problems on the border from illegals crossing.  That was the whole point of their law.

    In the end, Scott is arguing emotion, not reason.  That makes his claims humorous.

    • Rick -
      Examples – Parkland Hospital Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (2006)
      Or Dallas schools proposing to hire illegals as teachers for their ability to speak spanish? (2006)
      Or  Dallas schools providing illegals with fake Social Security numbers to speed up their employment (2008)


      Now what condition would cause a school system to have to take these kinds of actions?
      Info is a few years old, but trust me, the costs haven’t gone down at Parkland.  We hear about it constantly.
      There haven’t been beatings, or attacks, or any of the ‘xenophobic’ things one would expect from a truly xenophobic populace.  The ‘immigrant’ rallies have not produced any outrages by EITHER side.
      So there’s some FACTS within the last 4 years here – let’s see if the Maine Mosquito has any facts he can link to proving HIS contentions.

  • The feds haven’t done a damn thing. They talk a bunch of retoric but ignore the issue. If this gets the fire lit under their pork barrel spending, self-gratifying behinds – good. If not, hopefully the ‘criminals’ entering the US will go elsewhere. I’m tired of budget cuts brought on by the medical care and education of the children of people who aren’t paying a penny in taxes. My grandchildren are suffering.

    Share your opinion on all of Arizona’s pressing political issues at http://www.azlegislation.com

  • And even more interesting news about our ‘Xenophobic attitudes’ here in Texas – Falcon Dam

     

    • I suppose it is those very same xenophobic attitudes that caused that massive wave of anti-muslim discrimination and violence post 9/11!

      Boy, who knew we were such phantom haterzzz?

  • Once again Erb has proven himslef to be nothing more than an Obama Shill.  His comments carry no force, no backup and are nothing more than a repeat of Democratic Talking Points.  You can get the same material by visiting Media Matters, Huffington Post, Daily KOS, Democratic Underground, or any one of several MSNBC pundits (Olberman, Mathews, Schultz, Maddow, etc.) and the list goes on and on.  The only thing that makes sense for him to continue to bring such lame comments into the blog is he is being paid – all of these other sites I mention are.  So enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, Erb.

  • “Obama Taps ‘Sanctuary City’ Supporter as Immigration Chief”
    The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice/

    If it wasn’t plain before it should be now.   Obama has no intention of enforcing immigration laws.

  • Let’s face it, folks; the United States as we once knew it is finished.  The damage that Obama and the Democrats are doing is largely irreversible.   In a few short years we’ll be a Banana Republic.  And we’ll be singing the Mexican national anthem and taking mandatory Spanish lessons.  God can’t even help us now.

  • The Arizona law is pretty much a statement that Arizona will enforce the federal immigration law. So it’s no more or less than the federal statutes that apply at the border and beyond.

    So, we have a situation where there are millions of illegals and Arizona has realized that the federal daddy isn’t doing its job and there are Mexican drug gangs murdering and kidnapping and Arizonans righly fear that this is already, and will get further, out of hand.

    I don’t know the situation first hand, not being in Arizona, but I note that Jan Brewer’s approval numbers jumped way up as she stuck with the law and defended it. Whether the law will actually help or not is an entirely different question.