GOP Lawmakers, Some Dems Blast Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Law

CBS/iStockphoto

The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws. Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law "reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

Arizona's Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain said in a statement today it is "far too premature" for the administration to challenge the law, since it has yet to be enforced.

"Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law," they said. "Attorney General Holder speaks of the 'federal government's responsibility' to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility?"

The administration should not sue the state for taking action until the federal government has done everything in its power to protect people from violence and crime related to illegal immigration, Kyl and McCain said.

Added Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, "Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders. If the president wants to make real progress on this issue, he can do so by taking amnesty off the table and focus his efforts on border and interior security."

Democratic Rep. Harry Mitchell, a freshman representative facing a tough re-election campaign, said in a statement he was "extremely disappointed" by the administration's decision. (Read more about the 2010 elections here.) Mitchell said, "I strongly believe [the federal government's] time, efforts and resources should be focused on securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system."

Mitchell, along with his fellow Arizona Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords, joined Republicans in denouncing the Obama administration's approach to immigration last week, following the president's address on the issue.

"Illegal immigration didn't occur overnight, and the situation cannot wait simply because folks choose to play politics," Mitchell said in his statement. "While the President acknowledged last week that Arizonans are justifiably fed up with inaction, filing a lawsuit is counterproductive to his statements of appealing to the American people's highest ideals to create a sensible and workable immigration policy. Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding."

The Justice Department today emphasized that some law enforcement officials from Arizona support the suit against the law.

"The impact of illegal immigration on Arizona's well-being cannot be denied," Tucson Chief of Police Roberto Villase?or said in a statement. "But to require local police to act as immigration agents when a lack of local resources already makes enforcing criminal laws and ordinances a challenging proposition, is not realistic. Our community will suffer as a result, with a decrease in quality of life, and an increase in local mistrust of police."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a separate suit against the law earlier this year with a coalition of civil rights groups, commended the Justice Department's actions.

"The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach," Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "We will continue to aggressively pursue our legal challenge and welcome the Justice Department's participation in the battle to preserve American values of fairness and equality."

[confused2byu]

So the Obama administration doesn't have time this year to act on immigration reform but does have time and tax dollars to sue Arizona? As always I am confused.

Apparently the citizen's of Arizona felt the need to pass this law and until Mr. Obama walks a mile in their shoes maybe he should get the facts before he jumps to judgment.

Is it not part of the oath of office for the president that he protects our shores and borders as commander and chief? He failed when it came to keeping the oil from invading our shores (yes it was BP responsibility to stop the leak) and now he is failing the American tax payer and the legal citizens of Arizona when it comes to illegal immigration.

[bajajohn1]

Funny. Rep. Lamar Smith represents a distict where all the old blue-haired Republican women hire illegals to clean their houses and the old Republicans hire illegals to do their yards. This is so they can spend time at the Country Club or the gymnasium tanning themselves.

[curse914]

by thy-only_king July 6, 2010 9:33 PM EDT
As far as securing the border, it would only take a few weeks if the military was deployed to the border with orders to stop the illegals from crossing, by what ever means necessary.

[][][][][][][][][]

Oh boy, the Commie dope, King, speaks again. And who is going to pay for the troops to sit on the boarder night and day? ARE YOU TRYING TO BANKRUPT OUR NATION KING!! NICE COMMIE PLOT!!!

[nosmiley]

Hey Curse914:
Have you finished grade school yet ? You're showing more than just your ignorance. Who do you think is paying for the two wars that your buddy "W" Bush started ? Starting a war doesn't mean that it was paid for in advance.You don't agree with King, but his idea would definitely work. How many nations can you name, that stand and watch, while millions of uneducated,non-skilled,disease carrying, people swarm their borders ?
If the US would follow Kings advice, and kill less than a hundred illegals AFTER they had crossed the border,and leave them rotting in the sun, the problem would go away in short order.
Your use of the word Commie is incorrect as well, because King's idea is exactly what Russia, China, Cuba, and other former Communist or current Communist countries would do.And they would not apologize to anyone about the need to protect their borders.
I have a considered opinion that you are of Latino origin.If the US would adopt Mexico's immigration policy, the problem would dry up also but they use King's suggestion already.
En boca cerrada, no entran moscas

[bot_feeder]

Obama's immigration policy is the same as Bush's. The vast majority of Americans are against it.

Obama is taking a stand against the American people. The Democrats will be held accountable in November.

[grayfrier]

This is just Obama's way of finding out if States can set there own laws on Illegals and if they can then he is home free.
Meaning all the States can pick and choose how they want to proceed if Congress keeps refusing to do anything then it is now out of there hands and in the hands of the States that are hardest hit they can choose to follow the Government laws or set there own and pushing the Fed. Government to follow through or get out of the way.
This maybe my opinion but it makes perfect sense if you think it through.
Go Obama make the States force Congress's hand!

[texas_liberal]

http://deprofiler.com/

[unitedagain]

It's OK for California to override Federal EPA Laws to protect the environment, but illegal for Arizona to help enforce Federal Immigration Laws to protect American Citizens?????????????? Apparently laws and the US Constitution are to be enforced as Obama see's fit for his followers agendas, not equally for all. Arrogance is Ignorance and he is the most arrogant president in history and so are his blind defenders and followers.

[waco2948]

What is wrong here can't you understand that "ILLEGAL MEANS BREAKING THE LAW" If were to break the law I would go to jail. So this is discrimation because I'm not BREAKING THE LAW. That obamie thing in office needs to be IMPEACHED . He has cost the REAL AMERICANS ENOUGH.

[alphaa10000]

GOP-- RUNNING FOR COVER ON IMMIGRATION

AndyMaxo said, "The GOP'ers are at fault. They voted DOWN President Bush's immigration reform and NOW say NO to Obama's immigration reform.
---

Since January 20, 2009, the GOP's only compass is consistent opposition-- even if the policy it condemns was essentially its own under Bush.


The Essential Difference (If You Can Find It) --

Yes, the GOP is the same party which was silent when Bush steadfastly refused to discuss "amnesty" as an issue, preferring to address "immigration reform", instead.

The GOP was silent because the GOP was (and is still) divided on the issue of amnesty, at least to the point Bush did not want to alienate anybody by being too forthright about his own views.

And those views favor any policy which promotes free entry into the US for cheap illegalistas-- so long as no one makes too much of a fuss about it.


Illegal Immigration Is a Corporate Meal Ticket--

Because, from ADM to Smithfield, cheap illegals are essential to keep fat corporate profit margins suitably obese, and continue corporate donations rolling into the GOP. The fair return for labor illegalistas earn, but do not get, keeps corporate profits high.

So, amnesty, shamnesty, if the corporate faction of the GOP has anything to say about it, the illegalistas are here to stay.

By immigration reform, of course, Bush meant a defined path to citizenship for the 12 million illegals in the country at that time. How long that pilgrim's progress toward full citizenship might take is anyone's guess, but the point is moot, and Bush knew it.

Again, the purpose of a "guest illegal worker" population is simply to boost corporate profits by (1) keeping labor costs low and (2) keeping unions at bay. The guest illegals can remain in legal limbo at least as long as Guantanamo, or perhaps the exact set of rights, powers and privileges corporations enjoy under the constitution.

A guest illegal population informally approximates what the Afrikaaners under Botha did with Bantus-- they could obtain permits and work out of certain special areas. Although the legal status of Bantus was never in doubt, the status of illegalistas is, a difference without political consequence.


Fenced In--

In 2006, the Bush administration began work on the Secure Border Initiative (SIBNet), a high-tech border fence under radar surveillance, capable of distinguishing between a running illegal and a rolling sagebrush.
Unfortunately, the Doppler characteristics of each are so similar, even Boeing could not pull it off. (Boeing, we recall, makes booster stages for NASA, and competes in high-tech fighter competitions, just for fun.)

Obama has yet to decide what to do, especially after the GOP policy of DEregulation left the economy in flames, and the gulf awash with crude oil. For Obama, surely, there are more important matters in the federal budget than a fence which Bush built with taxpayer dollars for $15.1 million per mile-- and still does not work.

Asked about that little discrepancy, Boeing's Roger Krone, Boeing's czar for its "Virtual Fence", said press portrayals of fence costs have been unfair.. Of the $833 million appropriated, $484 million went for "nonrecurring costs"-- design, development, supplier and program management and software design and development.

By Krone's measure of efficiency, it is not fair to count start-up costs in any program. So, just imagine what could be accomplished by that accounting rule with a rebuilding of our national infrastructure or a building of a national smart power grid or multiple centers for development of alternative energy. Since no startup costs are involved, these worthy projects could be built for... well, almost nothing, on paper.

For that matter, even our bloated Pentagon budget is actually anorexic, since as we all know, even Boeing must pay its engineers something-- even if it does not win contracts-- and naturally this "overhead" must be passed along to the next DOD contract as the "cost" in "cost plus" accounting.

[nottellin1]

Wow I just read the lawsuit and am astounded by how many times I read ?congress decided not to enforce this law?. I didn?t realize that the courts were allowed not to enforce a law. Does this mean that one may decide not to obey a law? If so, which laws are open to selective enforcement? I wonder what other laws congress has decided not to enforce.

[user000049586849302948602]

Don't drop the soap.

[alphaa10000]

STILL NOT TELLIN'?

notellin1 said, "Does this mean that one may decide not to obey a law? If so, which laws are open to selective enforcement? I wonder what other laws congress has decided not to enforce.
---

You are missing many gaps in your argument, not the least of which is the notorious non-response of Bush in all eight years of his term to border control measures.

Only in 2006 did the matter become too politically obstreperous to hide any longer. And the Bush response was to pass token measures like the Secure Border Initiative (which worked out well for Boeing), and make vague noises about "immigration reform".

As of today, Arizona is not the first state of the union to disagree with how the federal government operates. George Wallace staked his political career on it.

But there is a constitutional division of responsibility fully addressing the issue of who is in charge, and AG Holder is correct to mount an answer to the Arizona challenge.