View Full Version : Nat'l Security Brief for 9 states backs Arizona immigration law

07-15-2010, 08:31 AM
DETROIT (AP) - States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said.


07-15-2010, 08:38 AM
Obama throwing a lawsuit at Arizona is going to blow up in his face, big time.
When it does, you will probably see a lot of states start passing their own version of the Arizona law.

I look forward to it.

The Mad Crapper
07-15-2010, 08:38 AM
"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said.


And B.O. didn't file a lawsuit against Arizona, and drops hints daily about amnesty, in his quest to get re-elected in 2012?


07-15-2010, 02:44 PM
Here's the brief: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/USA_v_AZ-_MI_Amicus_7-14-2010_327848_7.pdf

Having read it, I wonder "why did he bother?" He doesn't even address the most glaring issue for the pre-emption argument.

- Federal Law - being present without authorization = civil violation
- AZ SB 1070 - being present without authorization = criminal violation

Just to be sure I didn't overlook it, I did a quick word search for "misdemeanor." Not there.

Simply ignoring the problem doesn't work; the court isn't going to ignore it. If anything, this brief seems like a surrender - they know they're going to lose the case so they're just bleating the ridiculous "this law doesn't change anything" talking point AZ has adopted for political theater.

07-15-2010, 02:57 PM
Here's another thing that I was thinking about last night; Cox doesn't seem to have any better handle on it than I do. It's a poser.

Finally, any claim that S.B. 1070 interferes with the Federal government's allocation of resources must fail because Arizona does not, and cannot, place any obligation on the Federal government after an unlawful alien is reported. Under A.R.S. 11-1051(C), a law enforcement agency "shall" notify Federal immigration officials. Once that notification has been completed, it is ultimately up to the Federal government how to proceed. The Federal government could, for example, exercise its discretion by allowing the unlawful alien to remain in the United States in the interest of providing humanitarian relief. Or the Federal government could simply refuse to process any unlawful alien referred to them by Arizona officials, as suggested in May 2010 by the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.3

There is simply no provision in S.B. 1070 that would, or could, permit Arizona to overrule such an exercise of discretion.

The problem is this - if Arizona were to release an illegal alien - not into federal custody or so forth - that illegal alien would IMMEDIATELY be committing a crime. And Arizona would be abetting it. :doh!: