Arizona counter-sues over SB1070

Arizona counter-sues over SB1070
by and Associated Press (February 10th, 2011 @ 12:20pm


PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has announced the state will sue the federal government for its failure to secure the border and enforce immigration laws.

Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne held a news conference Thursday to announce their fight in the face of a federal judge’s ruling that parts of SB1070, the state’s controversial immigration law, are unconstitutional.

The announcement came four days after Brewer signed into law a bill that would let legislativeleaders participate in efforts to defend the enforcement law against court challenges.

Uh-huh… so, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

A good thing. American history has been underlined with a constant battle between states & states rights and the federal government and federal control. The federal government has gone far too far in asserting itself over the states. If Arizona wins this, and the states win their court fights over Obamacare, it will be a victory for states rights and a return to the balance that the Founding Fathers intended.

Well, since “Obamacare” has been raised in a thread that I thought would be about immigration, I’ll just ask what you think Obamacare actually is. Not what any particular pundit says it is, but what is it, really?

It seems to me 600k Americans died so that Lincoln could tell states-rights people where they can stick their objections.

I am not raising that issue. It was merely a tangential mention regarding the battle over states rights and federal control.’

That was a nice try though.

Maybe we can bring back slavery!

As much as I agree with the Arizona law, the courts have no place telling the executive how to properly enforce laws. If Obama is not enforcing the law, then it is the job of Congress to impeach and convict him. It is certainly not the job of a court to do the President’s job.

How do you feel about copyright infringement? That’s what you’ve done in your otherwise content free cut and paste job of an OP.

Reported for that reason.

terryobrien, please don’t copy and paste entire articles. The link and a relatively short quote will be fine. And in the future, please don’t start a thread without offering any questions or comments of your own.

Okay, then what’s your understanding of the Arizona law and its effects and the issues it was presumably passed to address?

I can understand someone having a general policy favouring states’ rights, but unless the person is a nut, I assume it’s not absolute and that they’re okay with some issues left to the states and some to the Feds. I’m curious what your understanding of these issues are, starting with immigration but since you first brought up “Obamacare”, feel free to tackle that too.

You know what would be the best resolution to the Arizona law? If the police started enforcing it as written. Anyone who looks like an immigrant (like, say, Jan Brewster) would be required to produce proof of citizenship, but the folks who don’t look like immigrants (like Jose and Pedro working on the farm) wouldn’t. I guarantee you that if that happened, it’d get repealed in a heartbeat, at least until the legislators have time to explain that no, they meant the racist interpretation.

I hate to break it to you, but Arizona is going to lose, and it won’t be close. Even Brewer knows that. This is political grandstanding, and nothing more.

The article isn’t very clear, but what is Arizona actually arguing?

If it’s that the federal government is obligated to protect states from entry by particular aliens, I don’t see how they have a case, because the federal government has pretty much exclusive and absolute power to determine which non-citizens may enter and remain in the country. Congress could enact a law tomorrow repealing all immigration restrictions. That would almost certainly be legal, so I don’t see how it could be illegal for them to do anything less extreme than that (such as having restrictions but not allocating resources to enforce them in a way that makes Jan Brewer happy).

If it’s that laws passed by Congress aren’t being enforced by the executive branch properly, I don’t see how Arizona would have standing to sue over such a thing. (Not that they would appear to have a case even with standing.)

While I would agree that the Founding Fathers probably intended for there to be far less Federal power than there is today, it’s worth noting that they structured the Constitution in that way due to the politics of the late 18th century. Specifically, many of the states hated one another, and all of them were virtual nation states in their own right. Without a middling weak central government, the states would never have been willing to join up.

That practical reality is not the state of things today. Had it not been at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it’s relatively likely that the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have given the states as much power as they did.

Let’s say that there are three people, Alan, Bridget, and Charles.

Alan declares that he will protect Bridget from harm. After Alan has made this declaration, Charles punches Bridget in the face. The next day, Charles punches her in the face again, and the next day, and the one after that. At no point does Alan intercede.

Finally, Bridget moves to defend herself against Charles, and at this point Alan tells her that she can’t do that, she has no right to usurp Alan’s power as the grand protector. He tells her that if she tries to defend herself from Charles, then he’ll punch her in the face just the way that Charles would.

Now in this situation, would you not say that Bridget has fairly decent standing to complain that Alan is a bastard either way you cut it? He isn’t doing what he promised her, and he’s preventing her from doing what he had promised to do.

There’s no such thing as states’ rights. Thinking there is shows a complete lack of understanding of the constitution.

Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God… unless they be the little brown children, in which case suffer them to stay poor for the Father chose not to bless them with the honor of being born in the promised land.

Oh, that’s brilliant. A governor wants to protect her citizens from people who are illegally crossing the border, and you equate that to slavery. Yep, only a Liberal could concoct that sort of twisted thinking

You do realize that the Mexicans are the ones being exploited, right?

It’s business owners who want cheap labor that create the market for them to get here. Are you capable of understanding that without the labor market they wouldn’t come? If you really cared, you’d be advocating prison time for anyone hiring an undocumented worker.

And off we go.