Thread: ACLJ & Members of Congress, Nearly 60,000 Americans Urge

ACLJ & Members of Congress, Nearly 60,000 Americans Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Immigration Law

PR Newswire

September 12, 2011 Monday 2:42 PM EST


WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2011


Representing 59 members of Congress and nearly 60,000 Americans, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today urged the Supreme Court to hear a case involving the Obama Administration's challenge to several key provisions of Arizona's law targeting illegal immigration. In an amicus brief supporting Arizona's Petition for Writ of Certiorari - urging the high court to reverse the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - the ACLJ contends that Arizona's S.B.1070 is constitutional because it mirrors federal immigration law and incorporates federal standards.

"The state of Arizona acted appropriately and constitutionally when it took action to target illegal immigration," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "This state law is sound and gives Arizona the constitutional authority to protect its borders and its citizens. As other states consider similar laws to do the same, it's important that the Supreme Court take this case and put an end to any questions about the validity and constitutionality of the Arizona law. There is no question that states can take action that compliments federal immigration law without violating it. That's exactly what Arizona has done and we're hopeful the high court engages this issue and reverses a flawed appeals court decision."

In its amicus brief, posted here, the ACLJ represents 59 members of Congress and more than 57,000 Americans who have signed on to the ACLJ's Committee to Protect America's Border.

The brief argues that the Supreme Court needs to take this case because the federal appeals court erred and reached a faulty conclusion when it blocked key provisions of S.B. 1070.

In its brief, the ACLJ contends that "the Ninth Circuit's decision undermines federalist and separation of powers principles by permitting the Administration's policy preferences to trump Congress's statutory acknowledgement that states have inherent authority to enforce laws that profoundly affect their citizens' welfare. The Ninth Circuit's decision effectively leaves the states powerless over unchecked illegal immigration and the associated social and economic costs that their citizens must bear."

The ACLJ also urges the high court to take the case because many states across the country are enacting laws like Arizona's and that most of these mirror federal immigration provisions. "The legitimacy of state efforts to promote national policy as embodied in federal statutes is an important issue that requires this Court's resolution," the brief contends.

Further, the brief argues the appeals court decision "treads upon federalism by stripping the states of all sovereignty over problems that Congress and our federalist system have committed to the states." And, the ACLJ brief contends the 9th Circuit decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in May in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, in which the high court concluded that an Arizona employer-sanctions law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants is constitutional.

The ACLJ represents 59 members serving in the 112th U.S. Congress including four members of the U.S. Senate: John Barrasso, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, and David Vitter. Also included are 55 members of the U.S. House of Representatives including Arizona Representative Trent Franks and the following: Rodney Alexander, Michele Bachmann, Roscoe Bartlett, Brian Bilbray, Rob Bishop, Kevin Brady, Mo Brooks, Paul Broun, Dan Burton, Ken Calvert, John Campbell, John Culberson, John Duncan, John Fleming, Randy Forbes, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Tom Graves, Ralph Hall, Wally Herger, Lynn Jenkins, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Mike Kelly, Steve King, Adam Kinzinger, John Kline, Doug Lamborn, Jeff Landry, James Lankford, Robert Latta, Jerry Lewis, Cynthia Lummis, Don Manzullo, Michael McCaul, Tom McClintock, Thaddeus McCotter, Gary Miller, Jeff Miller, Tim Murphy, Sue Myrick, Alan Nunnelee, Joe Pitts, Ted Poe, Mike Pompeo, Bill Posey, Phil Roe, Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce, Jean Schmidt, Bill Shuster, and Lamar Smith.

The ACLJ also represents the ACLJ's Committee to Protect America's Border, which consists of 57,521 Americans nationwide.

www6.lexisnexis.com

States News Service

September 12, 2011 Monday


ROYCE OPPOSES WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATIVE AMNESTY

States News Service

WASHINGTON


The following information was released by the office of California Rep. Ed Royce:

Today, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) joined over 60 colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama to oppose his recent amnesty announcement and urged him to enforce our immigration laws.

"Not only does this White House want to ignore our current immigration laws but it further encourages illegal immigration," Royce said. "This Administration can't cherry pick the laws they'd like to enforce. At a time of nine percent unemployment we shouldn't allow more illegal workers to compete with Americans for jobs, we should remove the incentives that encourage illegal immigration."

The letter, signed by members of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus, opposes President Obama's August 18, 2011 announcement that the White House will stop enforcing immigration laws for certain illegal immigrants. The letter asks, "If we don't take our own laws seriously enough to enforce, why should we expect anyone to follow them?"

"Our fear is that this policy will irreparably harm the prospects of true immigration reform for many years to come. Mr. President, our request is simple: enforce our immigration laws evenly without passion, prejudice or preference," the letter concludes.


September 12, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Members of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus along with members of the House vehemently oppose your August 18, 2011 announcement to bypass Congress and use prosecutorial discretion to achieve amnesty for individuals who are illegally residing in the U.S. The manner with which your administration has introduced this policy not only robs the public of a thorough vetting, but it also fails to appreciate the negative consequences of this policy shift.

Over the last several years, with the support of the American public, Congress has consistently defeated amnesty proposals for illegal aliens. This recent effort appears to be nothing more than an attempt to avoid public review and unilaterally impose amnesty by picking and choosing which laws to enforce; or in this case, not to enforce, thereby enabling illegal aliens to remain in the country.

In addition, we are convinced the consequences of implementing this policy will include, but certainly not be limited to, the loss of public confidence and the encouragement of future illegal immigration. Even prior to this, the American public's confidence in the Administration to address illegal immigration was tenuous at best. This is evidenced by the number of states that have initiated and passed their own immigration enforcement laws. This shift in policy confirms the general public's suspicion that Administration is not serious about controlling illegal immigration.

Also, this policy has the added affect of further encouraging illegal immigration. Frankly put, if we don't take our own laws seriously enough to enforce, why should we expect anyone to follow them? This policy will introduce a new wave of illegal immigrants emboldened with the knowledge that not only is it okay to break the law, but they will likely be rewarded for it with de facto amnesty status; thereby exacerbating an already vicious cycle we as a nation have been trying to address for over two decades.

This attempt to satisfy the narrow interests of the pro-amnesty lobby has ultimately earned the distrust of the greater American public. Our fear is that this policy will irreparably harm the prospects of true immigration reform for many years to come. Mr. President, our request is simple: enforce our immigration laws evenly without passion, prejudice or preference.

###

September 12, 2011

www6.lexisnexis.com