Thread: Feds Take Colorado voters to court

Lawyers fight immigration lawsuit


September 21, 2007
By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau

DENVER - Federal lawyers went to court Thursday to ask a judge to throw out a lawsuit by Colorado voters over Washington's failure to enforce its immigration laws.

Voters approved Referendum K, which required the lawsuit, 57 percent to 43 percent in November's election. The Legislature put it on the ballot during a special session on immigration last summer.

A Department of Justice lawyer said Thursday that immigration is a political question for Congress and the president, not an issue for the courts to decide.

"The court would be placed in the impossible task of trying to organize immigration policy and border protection on a federal level," said Thomas Dupree, a lawyer from the Department of Justice's immigration division in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock did not issue a ruling Thursday. He said he'd have a decision as soon as possible.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Smith argued Colorado's side. Babcock told him it sounded like Colorado was asking the judge to push aside Congress and the president and take control of immigration.

"Take control of the federal government. That's what you mean - doesn't hurt to ask," Babcock said.

"Doesn't hurt to ask," Smith responded.

Babcock continued: "If you got what you ask for and I took control of the government, heaven help us all."

Smith asked Babcock to at least enforce a narrow part of an immigration law passed by Congress in 2004. It required the Department of Homeland Security to hire 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and 800 investigators, and add 8,000 immigration jail beds. But Homeland Security's budget the next year called for only 1,000 agents, 350 investigators and 1,800 jail beds.

Other states, including New Jersey, California and Texas, have tried in the past to sue the federal government over immigration. Each time, courts ruled they didn't have the legal standing to sue.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers himself argued last year against filing the lawsuit because of the other states' failures. But because voters required a lawsuit, Suthers' deputies had to try some legal gymnastics to convince Babcock to continue the case.

The previous cases, Smith argued, were decided before the 2001 terrorist attacks. Since then, President Bush and Congress have declared that an invasion has happened - triggering the invasion clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees federal protection to the states. The best evidence of a state of invasion, Smith said, is that Congress suspended habeas corpus - the right of a prisoner to see a judge - at Bush's urging.

But by invoking the Sept. 11 argument, Colorado lawyers have to show that terrorists might be among the illegal immigrants who are crossing the border.

Suthers was in Mexico on a delegation of state attorneys general on Thursday, but his spokesman said he's taking the lawsuit seriously.

Even though the legal details are focused on national security, the lawsuit is trying to do what voters wanted - force a change in federal immigration enforcement, said Suthers' spokesman Nate Strauch. Suthers didn't want to follow the lead of other states that have failed to get courts to rule on broader questions of illegal immigration.

"That's not a winning legal argument, and it's not something we were willing to put forth in court," Strauch said.

The lawsuit has cost just more than $46,000 to date. If Babcock lets it proceed, it will cost $190,000 this year, Strauch said.

http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/articl ... 0921_5.htm

The lawsuit has cost just more than $46,000 to date. If Babcock lets it proceed, it will cost $190,000 this year, Strauch said.

Money well spent.

Duplicate Post:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... highlight=

Thanks zeezil - good catch.

Thread locked. Please reference link above.