ABC: DoJ to file lawsuit against AZ over immigration-enforcement law next week

posted at 10:14 am on June 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

At least this time we managed to get the news just ahead of Ecuador:

Obama administration sources tell ABC News that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its immigration law, likely next week. …

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.

Did Obama manage to pick up a phone this time and tell Governor Jan Brewer first?  Probably not.

The White House wants to make people believe that this is a slam dunk, but it’s not.  The Arizona legislature specifically wrote the law to survive a court challenge.  They even quickly amended it when an initial ambiguity about “lawful contact” gave critics a substantive hook to oppose the bill.  The DoJ itself will have to explain its own program to train local and state police on immigration law and enforcement through its Community Oriented Policing Services program.  The Basic Immigration Enforcement Training (BIET) is a course offered over the Internet that covers exactly the kind of ground that SB1070 mandates:

Rather than spending valuable time and training funds on traditional classroom training, officers can now use Basic Immigration Enforcement Training (BIET) for their immigration training. BIET consists of Web-based courses, allowing officers to take classes when and wherever is most convenient for them.

A rising immigrant population in the U.S. has led to a dramatic increase in local, state, and tribal law enforcement encounters with both legal and illegal immigrants during routine police duties. As immigration continues to affect interior communities, there is an increasing demand for law enforcement officers to have a working knowledge of immigration law and policy.

BIET is a highly interactive, self-paced multimedia training program that addresses the immigration knowledge requirements of local, state, and tribal law enforcement officers. BIET addresses a wide range of topics including:

  • False identification
  • Identifying valid identification documents
  • Consular notification
  • Diplomatic immunity
  • Nonimmigrant visas
  • Immigrant and nonimmigrant status
  • Law Enforcement Support Center resources

BIET was developed by Cameron University and Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. with funding received from the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office. The pilot program was available for free to the first 500 officers from law enforcement departments.

The argument that immigration-law enforcement is exclusive to federal agents will be impossible to square with this current program.  If local and state law enforcement aren’t supposed to enforce these laws, why is the DoJ training them to do so?  If demanding and identifying valid identification documents and determining “immigrant and nonimmigrant status” are areas of expertise that the DoJ shares with state and local police, why wouldn’t they be expected to act on them?  After all, isn’t the DoJ’s argument that the process of determining all of the above could be done in a discriminatory manner just as applicable to the very police officers the DoJ trains to do the same thing?

The Obama administration is about to fall on its face in court, and I suspect Arizona will make BIET one of its main exhibits.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bring it! I can’t wait to see the 0bama administration walk away defeated. Again.

UltimateBob on June 22, 2010 at 10:16 AM

If Obama’s approval numbers are above 10% next week, that should prove that a large number of people in the US are insane. What does it take? We’ve got the idiotic handling of the oil spill, McChrystal’s revolt, this, and a half dozen other things…

Daggett on June 22, 2010 at 10:19 AM

But remember, Kyl’s claim that Obama said he won’t enforce the border for political reasons is just ridiculous.

forest on June 22, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Go for it

it’ll do wonders for popularity

blatantblue on June 22, 2010 at 10:19 AM

The Obama administration is about to fall on its face in court

This should be a familiar situation with Kagan as Solicitor General. Even if they had a leg to stand on, she’d find a way to screw up the argument and piss off the judges involved.

teke184 on June 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM

I’m proud to be part of the presidential spanking, assuming the outcome is as expected. This will be a great way to establish judicial precedence. But I wish I were more confident in our fair and impartial judiciary.

azkag on June 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.

Sounds pretty weak to me.

Johnnyreb on June 22, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Anybody else suspect that back channels are hot with talk like “we’ll screw AZ in every other way possible if you don’t bend to our will.”?

Patrick S on June 22, 2010 at 10:23 AM

The arrogance and down right anti-Americanism from this administration is appalling. I can’t think of a more incompetent failure for a President before Obama. It’s frikkin scary when you realize how much damage he has done already and he isn’t done yet. 18 months into his Presidency and the suffering because of this fool is only beginning.

Guardian on June 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Our anti-American President reminds me of a Kamikaze pilot.

kingsjester on June 22, 2010 at 10:26 AM

President declares war on legal citizens, abdicates duty to uphold federal law

Good Lt on June 22, 2010 at 10:27 AM

I truly smell something…..sniff, sniff…could it be?

YES, IT WOULD BE HIS POLL NUMBERS HITTING 35% after he LOSES the Lawsuit against a state to enforce existing Federal Laws that he himself, in an impeachable act, refuses to enforce!

BRING IT ON AND PASS THE POPCORN!

SDarchitect on June 22, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Is there any chance this will bring down Holder as well?

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.
Sounds pretty weak to me.

Johnnyreb on June 22, 2010 at 10:23 AM

It is. It is lacking in one essential element to a lawsuit.
It’s called “evidence.”

This is all speculative, and until DOJ comes up with evidence (and a few anecdotal cases would probably not suffice), there is no basis to rule in favor of DOJ.

Wethal on June 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Every time this administration fights for ideology in public, especially in a court fight, we gain votes. I welcome this case with open arms.

I wish the law itself wasn’t necessary by the way, since I like immigration, but the Feds have totally failed to control the border (which is their Constitutional duty).

MTF on June 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Case thrown out as frivolous by the judge, is the slap upside the head this administration needs.

meci on June 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Compare the speed with which this administration sues AZ to its response time to the Gulf disaster or any other domestic problem.

There’s no comparison. It points out the fact that when something concerns them like protecting illegals (a potential voting block) they hop to it. When it comes to taking care of American citizens, their property and livelihoods and in many cases their lives, they not only ignore the problem, they make it worse.

It couldn’t be more obvious what their priorities are.

Cody1991 on June 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The Administration cannot win this on the basis of Arizona’s law. The only possible way that they can win this is to show that Arizona does not have the right to enact such a law at State level; sort of a “States’ Rights” issue in reverse.

ss396 on June 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM

I wonder if the Obama administration has been running its mouth about the law all this time because they though Brewer and everyone else in Arizona would back down from all the heat. But since they didn’t and essentially called Obama’s bluff, he’s forced to go all the way with this.

All I can say is thank God for Jan Brewer. That is one tough lady.

Doughboy on June 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Good. It’s about time the dirty laundry of immigration got a full and complete airing, and this just might be the venue to accomplish that.

I look forward to seeing PBHO and his ‘rat enablers try to explain why illegals can’t be excluded from this nation, why our laws can’t be enforced.

Bishop on June 22, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Oh YES!!! Bring it, baby!! We are going to need a bigger blog just to capture all of the game-changing, skin losing, goodness that will follow.

I’ll just break out the popcorn and enjoy the show. :)

itzWicks on June 22, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Jan Brewer would do well and find inspiration by following the following quote from Davey Crockett:

“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearlessly and independent and I never will regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.”

PatriotRider on June 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM

This just makes me sick! This bho and team are beyond belief in how they are cratering our Republic. Please Gov. Brewer DO NOT cave to these thugs in the wh.
L

letget on June 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Fred Thompson has been all over this one.

Looking forward to hear him legally blast Obama’s administration again today.

maverick muse on June 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Did the phone ever ring, Gov Brewer? Didn’t think so. The thug in chief is a sneak. He’ll never face up to anyone straight on. He’d rather stab you in the back through a subordinate or media. Keeps his hands clean that way.

Kissmygrits on June 22, 2010 at 10:34 AM

“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearlessly and independent and I never will regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.”

PatriotRider on June 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM

And Brewer’s not the only one who should emulate Crockett’s valor. CONGRESS!

maverick muse on June 22, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Kissmygrits on June 22, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Marxists take cloak and dagger to a whole new level.

maverick muse on June 22, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Thank goodness I don’t like popcorn. Otherwise, by the end of November I wouldn’t be able to get through the front door.

OldEnglish on June 22, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Are they going after that town in Nebraska next?

Reading HotAir today is making my blood boil.

gophergirl on June 22, 2010 at 10:37 AM

BTW, if you feel inclined maybe send a note of support to Jan Brewer, let her know there are many of us out here supporter her.

http://www.azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp

Bishop on June 22, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Another solid B+ performance is about due. I can’t wait.

percysunshine on June 22, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Can’t wait to hear what “The Great One” has to say about this.

This must truly be a great time to be a conservative talk show host or blogger – what a target-rich environment.

pain train on June 22, 2010 at 10:41 AM

ABC: DoJ to file lawsuit against AZ over immigration-enforcement law next week

TRANSLATION: DoJ desperate for undocumented immigrant vote despite not having a legal leg to stand on

fogw on June 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM

If only this administration prosecuted the war in Afghanistan with the same gusto they are willing to wage war on Arizona.

ICBM on June 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM

I agree with others sentiments here – BRING IT! Obama does not have the guts to see this through – he is trying to intimidate her into backing down, not going to happen. Anyone wonder why it is only the conservative WOMEN that have any backbone what so ever? Where have all the men gone?

Govgirl on June 22, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Obama administration sources tell ABC News that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its immigration law, likely next week.

Story of this administration’s life.

One will get you 50, it’ll be next week.
If it comes out next week, one will get you 50 cents it will be United States v. ji’Qlllework

Dusty on June 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM

If Arizona prevails in court, there’s going to be a floodgate of similar laws passed and applied in other states.

However, if it fails we are opening the floodgates to all turd world countries to send their poor here.

BowHuntingTexas on June 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Obama and Holder are making a calculated gamble that they will win in court. If they lose as expected by most of us, it could encourage other states to adopt the identical law as Arizona. I would dearly love to see Obama and Holder fall on their keisters on this matter.

Big Nicholas on June 22, 2010 at 10:51 AM

The funny thing is, if the police pick up a citizen of another country, that arrestee, by treaty, has a right to contact his embassy. So police should inquire into the citizenship of anyone they arrest

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/emergencies/emergencies_1199.html

CONSULAR ACCESS TO PRISONERS: Article 36(a) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 UNST 261, a multilateral treaty to which many, but not all, countries are party provides that consular officers shall be free to communicate with their nationals and to have access to them. However, Article 36(b) provides that the foreign authorities shall inform the consular officer or the arrest of a national “without delay” (no time frame specified), if the national requests such notification . Bilateral Consular Conventions between the United States and individual countries are more specific, requiring notification, regardless of whether the arrested person requests it, and generally specifying the time period in which such notification is to be made. When there is no treaty in force, notification and access are based on comity and largely dependent on whether the two countries have diplomatic relations.

rbj on June 22, 2010 at 10:52 AM

This is just stupid — I’m having a hard time thinking of an argument on the fed side that shouldn’t be dismissed from the beginning. Best case (for the administration), this drags on for a while then dies quietly; worst case, they have their noses rubbed in it by having it thrown out of court for not stating a cause of action.

zerosheep on June 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM

This lawsuit will go nowhere. It won’t even go to court for years and will probably be quietly dropped after the midterm elections. It’s an election gimmick to try to wring out a few thousand more Hispanic votes. It’s all about politics with this administration. Actually governing is merely a side job for Barry et al.

WarEagle01 on June 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM

I wonder if Holder will actually read the Arizona law before filing suit.

Vashta.Nerada on June 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM

We’re going to sue you for….writing a law exactly like one we already have!!!!!

Seriously, with Obama…you just can’t make this stuff up.

search4truth on June 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

I think Obama pretty much dispels the theory that a Harvard law degree is something special.
If nothing else, you would think he would pick a lawsuit he KNOWS he will win…unless I am missing something, it seems to me if someone is doing something illegal (federal or state), police have a right to arrest them.
If you stop someone for speeding, and they have drugs, or a loaded gun, can’t they detain them for illegal possession, even though they stopped them for speeding?
You stop someone for speeding, and you are suspicious so you have them open the trunk, and bomb materials are there, you let them go?
What am I missing?

right2bright on June 22, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Anti-Arizona Lawsuit Would Be Unprecedented and Unnecessary [Kris W. Kobach]

When, during an interview in Ecuador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag about the Obama administration’s plan to sue Arizona, she did more than foul up the Justice Department’s eventual roll-out of the plan. She also revealed who was sitting in the driver’s seat when it came to the Justice Department’s decision: “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

In other words, the same political reasoning that drove President Obama to criticize (and mischaracterize) the Arizona law is now driving the Justice Department to bring the suit. Not to mention the potential embarrassment that would result if the Justice Department had made an independent decision to the contrary. Barack Obama, constitutional scholar that his fans make him out to be, can’t say one thing and have the Justice Department say another.

The only problem with Obama’s strategy is that the federal judges will actually read the Arizona law, and they will find that there is precious little for the Justice Department to attack. The opinions of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the Circuits that have addressed the issue) support the authority of Arizona to enact its law. Another obstacle for the Justice Department is the fact that the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 authored an opinion on the topic, finding that state police officers are well within their rights to make arrests of illegal aliens.

The legal frailty of the administration’s position is bad enough. What makes it worse is the unprecedented nature of an administration suing a state, absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Normally, considerations of comity and federalism demand restraint in the consideration of any such suit. The administration’s lack of restraint is deeply troubling.

To put it in perspective, consider how restrained Bush’s Justice Department was. During 2001–2009, numerous states and cities enacted laws rewarding immigration that clearly violated the express terms of federal law. For example, ten states enacted laws giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who attend their state universities, which violates 8 U.S.C. § 1623; and dozens of cities adopted sanctuary policies that prevent their police officers from reporting illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. Even though the states and cities involved were violating the plain text of federal law, the Justice Department held its fire. Only when the state of Illinois declared that a federal program allowing employers to verify their employees’ work authorization electronically — E-Verify — would not be permitted in Illinois, did the Justice Department take the unusual step of filing suit. Doing otherwise would have allowed one state to opt out of what Congress had said must be a nationwide program. The Bush Justice Department won easily.

In contrast, the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona will be on thin ice from the start. There is no federal statute that the administration can point to that Arizona has violated. They will rely on activist theories of federal preemption that the ACLU has been peddling with little success for years.

But even if one were to imagine that the Obama administration had a strong legal argument, there would be yet another reason not to file the lawsuit: It is completely unnecessary. Five suits have already been filed by the ACLU and their fellow travelers. The issue is already teed up for the federal courts to decide. The administration achieves nothing by launching its own litigation. Except, of course, for rallying the Democrats’ open-borders base before the 2010 elections.

— Kris W. Kobach is a professor of law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) School of Law and one of the principal authors of Arizona SB 1070. He served as Attorney General John Ashcroft’s counsel and chief adviser in Immigration Law. He is currently a candidate for the office of Kansas secretary of state.

NRO.

If the Ninth Circus has already ruled in favor of such laws…

Wethal on June 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

I think Obama pretty much dispels the theory that a Harvard law degree is something special.

right2bright on June 22, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Ted Kennedy did that for me years ago, but point taken….

Vashta.Nerada on June 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

This is just stupid — I’m having a hard time thinking of an argument on the fed side that shouldn’t be dismissed from the beginning. Best case (for the administration), this drags on for a while then dies quietly; worst case, they have their noses rubbed in it by having it thrown out of court for not stating a cause of action.

zerosheep on June 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Get this in front of a Carter or Clinton appointed judge and anything’s possible.

BowHuntingTexas on June 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Did anyone catch Friday’s State Department daily press briefing? When questioned on the Secretary’s Ecuadorian TV appearance the Acting Deputy Department Spokesman put on a brilliant show.

I’ve dramatized it for entertainment purposes.

landshark on June 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

This is really just unprecedented.

Despite the play on words, this really is just incredible. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.

This disaster of an administration is willing to tinker with states’ rights, is willing to go to extreme levels to prevent a state from protecting it’s own residents over what… a few extra votes from a special interest group?

reaganaut on June 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM

I don’t believe its the lawsuit the DOJ will win, its the withholding of federal funds and services that might force capitulation.

I hope not, can Arizona stop the feds from sucking its blood?

I don’t think the supremacy clause applies and I don’t think the federal government can force a state to suffer harm.

Speakup on June 22, 2010 at 11:10 AM

This should help Dems come November!

/sarc

PattyJ on June 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM

This is political theater to satisfy the leftist latin community. They know they can’t win; but they’re willing to lose the battle to win the war.

This might have had a different effect if Obama were more popular right now, but he’s not – so I’m guessing this is going to backfire in a big way.

badtemper on June 22, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Holder just knows they are going to violate some federal statute. He just knows it.

Has he read the law yet? It is very lengthy. 10 pages

seven on June 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I am optimistic for Arizona’s prospects in the long term…but is there anything to prevent the Attorney General from venue shopping? Call me cynical, but I can see some 9th circuit wannabe federal judge (Tuscon?) placing an immediate TRO on enforcement, and ignoring the law to arrive at the conclusion desired. Only the Supremes will be able to put things right, and that will take a while.

We had this sort of thing occur in Texas with a U.S. District judge in Tyler – almost always reversed, but often too late to do any good. Not a lawyer, here, so I don’t know what Holder is legally obliged to do in this respect (and he probably doesn’t either, not that he cares).

HobbesDFW on June 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM

They are going to make themselves look even more foolish and amateurish. Lawyers they just can’t help themselves this must be a Pavlov’s Dog scenario filing lawsuits against states that are part of the contiguous United States that Obama is President of…they think this is a Political winner. This goes past having a tin ear. This has to be to distract people from the huge failure of this administration addressing the BP Gulf Oil Spill. They want to change the subject in the news cycle. That’s also not going to happen.

Dr Evil on June 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I think Obama pretty much dispels the theory that a Harvard law degree is something special.
If nothing else, you would think he would pick a lawsuit he KNOWS he will win

right2bright on June 22, 2010 at 10:59 AM

You’re assuming he read it.

“Fore!”

fogw on June 22, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Having been a cop for 30 years in Southern California, most of the BIET training is already covered in the basic officers academy. It’s not that damned difficult to ascertain in someone is in the country illegally. Push comes to shove when someone has no verifiable identification, you take the person to the station and run them through AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System).

GarandFan on June 22, 2010 at 11:21 AM

I think the next thing Arizona should do when they win this thing is call for a referendum demanding the beginning of impeachment actions against Obama for being a unfit to lead.

pilamaye on June 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Has this been posted yet?

Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty

Monday, June 21, 2010, 4:58 PM EDT –

Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation’s 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can’t secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can’t be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-21-2010/senators-challenge-pres-obama-rumors-executive-order-amnesty.html

Cody1991 on June 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Comrade Zero’s team will “kick ass” in federal court. Just like it did in winning the Chicago Olympic bid closing Gitmo stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons program managing the economic recovery responding to the Gulf oil spill picking a White House dog.

Cicero43 on June 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that Arizona law will be enforced hammers will be used in a way that could discrimination based on race and nationality dent wood or injure fingers.

And thats why hammers should not be used by anyone except the federal government.

First question from Scalia:

“Mr. Holder, has anyone been unlawfully prosecuted by the Arizona law?”

“No, not yet”

“Then you have no cause of action”.

BobMbx on June 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM

All of this crap continues — aliens and drug dealers and kidnappers freely crossing our borders, our government willing to turn a blind eye to legal status in order to make sure undocumented workers get paid “fairly”, oil still washing up all over the Gulf — and Obama is back up from -20 to -13 in the Rasmussen passion index.

What is wrong with the people in this country? What could possibly have made BO look better in the past week? Is it the push with seniors on healthcare? Is it the non-english speaking Hispanics cheering that Holder is going to file this suit?

I just don’t freakin get it.

Greyledge Gal on June 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Greyledge Gal on June 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Polls are informative, not factual.

Sleep easy. November is just around the corner.

BobMbx on June 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM

I’m having a hard time thinking of an argument on the fed side that shouldn’t be dismissed from the beginning.

[zerosheep on June 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM]

That’s because you are thinking, not feeling. Sympathy and empathy is where it’s at and the reason the filing is only “likely” to be next week is likely because the Justice Dept hasn’t decided whether the judge that may get this is S & E enough or whether they should wait for a better one.

Dusty on June 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Here’s a report from the Phoenix ABC affiliate last night about terrorists crossing the border. They also interview Jon Kyl. The Federal govt knows terrorists are crossing into the US and that they also know Venezuela is becoming a terrorist hub and issuing travel documents that can be used to obtain a US Visa. Yet we’re stuck with Obama and his refusal to secure the border.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/other/terrorists-crossing-az-border-into-u.s.%3F

I’m a proud native Arizonan and I say bring on the damn lawsuit! I’ll gladly donate to AZ’s defense.

GrannySunni on June 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Has this been posted yet?

Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-21-2010/senators-challenge-pres-obama-rumors-executive-order-amnesty.html

Cody1991 on June 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM

No, No, No, No, No!!!!!

If this happens, there truly will be an insurrection. The will of the people will not be ignored much longer. I think we are getting to the breaking point now.

This President is set on destroying the United States of America. He must be impeached — we cannot continue to be cowed by the threat of being called racist or having some mega-Watts type riots. This curtain must be called down on this farce called the Obama regime.

Greyledge Gal on June 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM

BobMbx on June 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Bob,when you follow one poll day in and day out for years, you get a pretty good idea of how voters feel. This man is pabout as low as he can ever go with Independents and Republicans. His base keeps returning to him no matter how much they carp about him. It is nonsensical.

Greyledge Gal on June 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

pabout should be about

Greyledge Gal on June 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Cody1991 on June 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I have been worried about this for some time.

Wethal on June 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Hey Eric, Jan says to save your last dance for her. And she says she doesn’t believe that a girl has to go home with the guy that brought her.

Eric, it may be too late but you could try getting a wingman. Lord knows you need something.

platypus on June 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Which court will they bring it to? If it’s the Ninth Circus it will be a slam dunk for PBO.

jpmn on June 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Which court will they bring it to? If it’s the Ninth Circus it will be a slam dunk for PBO.

jpmn on June 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Unlikely. The CW on the Ninth is way off.

platypus on June 22, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I’ve dramatized it for entertainment purposes.

landshark on June 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Aaaaah! That press briefing gave me a headache and made me want to smash my head against a wall. Just like the real thing. Cute–in a drive you buggy sort of way. Good job.

Gang-of-One on June 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Which court will they bring it to? If it’s the Ninth Circus it will be a slam dunk for PBO.

jpmn on June 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Apparently even the Ninth Circus has weighed in on this issue and ruled the way the rest of the circuits have.

The law was carefully drafted by researchers who did their homework. They stayed within the limits of court decisions and existing federal law. Once the law was passed, and some ambiguity was found that might lead to discriminatory application, the law was quickly amended.

The law’s backers saw a challenge by the WH as likely and drafted the law to anticipate the challenge.

Wethal on June 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM

You all are making the same mistake that most people lacking in experience with the U.S. legal system make.

You are assuming that the judge in question will be both honest and competent.

And based on the track record, I’d say that is a bad assumption.

CrazyGene on June 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM

The DOJ will bring suit, the state of Arizona will fight back, and all this will be paid for with tax payer dollars. Wonderful! And for what? So the dems can look good politically, to those they claim they want to help, but really just want their votes.

There are a few Republicans who are guilty of this as well. All in all, it’s just bogus, and disgusting.

capejasmine on June 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Ted Kennedy did that for me years ago, but point taken….

Vashta.Nerada on June 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Teddy drank his way through law school in Charlottesville (UVa), not Cambridge. Could be the two expulsions for cheating as a Harvard undergrad left the Harvard Law admissions people underwhelmed.

Barnestormer on June 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Two wars. An oil spill the size of which boggles the imagination, 10% unemployment, 13 trillion in debt and deficits rising to levels completely unsustainable.

And what does Obummer do? He goes to war with a US STATE.

This administration is attacking aggressively a US State.

This is a war on Federalism.

A war on the Republic
.

Opposite Day on June 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM

The Obama administration is about to fall on its face in court, and I suspect Arizona will make BIET one of its main exhibits.

How about a counterclaim for damages alleging an intentional refusal to enforce the immigration laws for partisan political purposes? Exhibit A–Sen. John Kyl’s affidavit. Followed quickly by an interrogatory directed at one The One.
At a minimum, that would put the he said/he said contest under oath.

Barnestormer on June 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Bank robbery is a federal crime, also, yet Washington doesn’t prosecute local law enforcement for investigating, pursuing, arresting, and jailing bank robbers. Same with kidnapping, wire fraud, narcotics dealing, etc. The DOJ will have to explain to the court why being in the country illegally is a special case, which will be hard to do since they already have congressionally-mandated programs for cooperating with local law enforcement.

Socratease on June 22, 2010 at 12:52 PM

I’m bringing peanuts and crackerjack for this one, and I’m sitting where I can watch the ball sail overhead when Brewer knocks it out of the park. (Of course, Obama’s girly pitch might prevent the ball ever reaching Home plate at all, but at least it’ll be a shorter game that way.)

BRING IT ON.

Brewer/Christie 2012

Animator Girl on June 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I’m with Mark Levin on this one. During last evening’s show, he characterized this as a trap being laid by AZ for the Obama administration. He fully expects AZ to prevail, and many, many states to then follow on with their own versions of the legislation.

Go Arizona!

LooseCannon on June 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Great timing for Stimulus Summer.

Dhuka on June 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

And as for Holder’s comment that the law “…will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.”, that’s absurd reasoning.

By that standard, we shouldn’t allow the police to carry sidearms because they might shoot someone. I didn’t know legal decisions were based on predicting the possibility of a future event via some crystal ball or tarot cards or something.

LooseCannon on June 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Holder is such a complete crook, you just know he’s got something underhanded planned. Probably something expensive and time-consuming.

I can’t see a scenario where he can get it past the Supremes, even with Kagan on board, but he could drag it out for a long time and cost Arizona a lot of money, hoping for a public opinion swing. (They elected a bumbling moron with an ignorant majority, why not this?)

I repeat, Holder is a crook. Dirty tricks will happen.

Merovign on June 22, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Jan Brewer for President 2012!

jpmn on June 22, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I would like to know what other Federal Laws the Government
WILL NOT BE ENFORCING so that I may enhance my income,
on the side.

elderberry on June 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Bwah ha ha ha. It’s like they set a trap for Obama, and blumbered along with his big imperial presidency self and fell right in.

Anyone know how long it will take for this to get to the Supremes? It would be really nice if Obama v. Arizona hit the court, and Obama, president Law Scholar, got a Constitutional smackdown right befoe 2012.

bitsy on June 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM

discrimination based on race and nationality.

OK — bear with me here. Is it not discrimination on the basis of nationality to bar illegal immigrants in the first place? Am I missing something?

The whole point here is one of nationality. Race has (really) nothing to do with it, but of course that’s the card in play.

Prufrock on June 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-21-2010/senators-challenge-pres-obama-rumors-executive-order-amnesty.html

Cody1991 on June 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Beat me to it!!!

I just FAXed my Senators and Congressman, after alerting Hannity and sending to tips@hotair and Michelle M.

I called Grassley’s office and confirmed beforew forwarding this to all my email pals.

OUTRAGEOUS!! But perfectly ordinary under this administration.

fred5678 on June 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I would like to know what other Federal Laws the Government
WILL NOT BE ENFORCING so that I may enhance my income,
on the side.

elderberry on June 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Personally, I am wondering what all will be made illegal that there is a high demand for. I hope Obama goes for petroleum prohibition. I plan to make a mind boggling fortune selling boot leg hydrocarbons on the CO2 black market.

/joking! in case you can’t tell

bitsy on June 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

The Obama admin. is colluding. Mexico is also filing suit. Imagine, our president and Mexico will stand together against AZ.

We are no longer the United States of America.

Our president is our enemy.

Schadenfreude on June 22, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Arizona = Fort Sumter.

ThePrez on June 22, 2010 at 2:51 PM