Thread: Holder: U.S. may take further legal action against Ariz.

Added to Homepage

http://www.alipac.us/article-5452--0-0.html

The debate over the immigration law has largely fallen along partisan lines, but Holder said Sunday the Obama administration's actions were not motivated by politics. "Not true at all," he said.

"What we're saying is that they cannot pass laws that are inconsistent with the federal laws, or do things that contravene federal policy when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws," Holder said. "And the Arizona statute, if you look at the guts of it, really puts in place a whole variety of things that are inconsistent with what we have decided to do as a federal government."

Don't insult our intelligence saying it isn't motivated by politics. How many special interest groups like La Raza, SEIU (too many to list) are telling the Obama administration what to do re this issue? And the administration doesn't want to lose a huge potential future group of voters.

And the AZ law only reinforces federal immigration law!!! By saying the law 'is inconsistent with what we have decided to do as a federal government'....does this mean they are creating their own form of immigration law?

It has never been more apparent to me that the federal government will not enforce their own laws. On and on it goes no matter what administration is in office.

And I'm furious that our government is using our tax dollars to help sue a state that I, as a taxpayer, support.

I have never been so upset, frustrated, angry and scared for the future of our country as I am under the current administration.

ME THINKS OBAMA IS GOING TO GET MORE THAN HE BARGAINED FOR. I'M AFRAID THIS COUNTRY IS HEADING FOR A LOT OF CIVIL UNREST. THERE IS GOING TO BE A AN UNREST LIKE THIS COUNTRY HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE. WE ARE ALL WAITING FOR NOVEMBER AND ELECTION DAY.

Arizona warned of 2nd lawsuit
Feds to use racial profiling as 'tools' against illegals law

By Stephen Dinan
8:35 p.m., Sunday, July 11, 2010

The Obama administration could file yet another lawsuit against Arizona if it decides racial profiling is taking place under that state's new immigration law, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said.

Mr. Holder's Justice Department sued Tuesday to block the law, arguing that it infringed on the federal government's right to determine immigration policy. But the lawsuit made almost no mention of racial profiling - a key issue in President Obama's attacks against the law in the weeks before the lawsuit was filed.

The attorney general, speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week in an interview aired on CBS on Sunday, said the pre-emption argument was the "strongest initial argument" against the law. If the law goes into effect despite the lawsuit, he said, federal officials will watch for profiling.

"If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis," he said.

Mr. Holder came under fire in May after he acknowledged to a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law, despite having publicly criticized it and arguing that it would lead to racial profiling.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, at a meeting of the nation's governors in Boston, told the Associated Press that the administration can't seem to make up its mind about its criticism of the law.

"Why would they have to hesitate, after all the comments they made, and all the outrage that they made against the bill in regards to racial profiling, that it didn't show up?" she said.

Speaking on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Mr. Obama's lawsuit was breaking new ground in "a misuse" of the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

"Never before have we challenged something because it might lead to something. There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do," he said.

He said Arizona's law amounts to "self-help consistent with existing federal programs that have been passed by Republican and Democratic presidents," and therefore does not conflict with the Constitution.

Immigration has been a flash-point issue for years, and Arizona's law has only fanned the flames.

The law, which is slated to take effect July 29 unless a judge blocks it, would require police to check the legal status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally whom they encounter while enforcing other laws. It says race may not be used as a factor for determining who should be questioned, but opponents, including Mr. Obama, say they fear it will lead to racial profiling nonetheless.

A half-dozen lawsuits already have been filed against the law and the administration could have joined one of them in a friend-of-the-court brief. Instead, the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit, showing a strong statement of Mr. Obama's interest in Arizona's law.

Arizona officials argue that their law doesn't do more than enforce what is already on the books under U.S. law, but Mr. Holder said the new rules don't account for the nuances of federal policy, such as international relations and national security concerns.

"States and local governments can certainly help the federal government enforce immigration laws. What we're saying is that they cannot pass laws that are inconsistent with the federal laws or do things that contravene federal policy when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws," he said.

Still, Mrs. Brewer said last week that the federal government is being hypocritical in singling out Arizona for enacting a policy when there are dozens of so-called "sanctuary cities" that refuse to report illegal immigrants - which also potentially conflicts with federal law.

The Obama administration contends that the border is more secure now than at any other time in recent memory, and points as evidence to the decline in illegal immigrants caught crossing the border and the increase in U.S. Border Patrol agents begun under Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush.

Now Mr. Obama is pushing Congress to act on a broad immigration bill that would legalize illegal immigrants and rewrite the legal immigration system, though it does not include a temporary-worker program that businesses and many Republicans say is needed to gain their support.

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said that has been jettisoned at the wishes of labor unions.

"A temporary-worker program would have to be a part of any comprehensive immigration reform. And there isn't support for that in the Congress right now," said Mr. Kyl, who was a key part of the 2007 effort to pass a bill.

http://oneoldvet.com/

www.washingtontimes.com

Originally Posted by LadyStClaire

ME THINKS OBAMA IS GOING TO GET MORE THAN HE BARGAINED FOR. I'M AFRAID THIS COUNTRY IS HEADING FOR A LOT OF CIVIL UNREST. THERE IS GOING TO BE A AN UNREST LIKE THIS COUNTRY HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE. WE ARE ALL WAITING FOR NOVEMBER AND ELECTION DAY.

We are kind of between a rock and a hard place because we have those FEMA camps hanging over our heads and the possibilty of foreign troops to put us in them combined with some horrendous occurrences recently of officers tasing the elderly or taking them down physically in ways that the older body can easily die from - lots of these events are getting news coverage recently and I'm wondering what is going on. If people start rioting after the election because they finally see what a joke the whole process is - well I'm not looking forward to that. Unfortunately some people do not respond to anything but violence just like some kids need a spanking. These big kids need a prolonged if not permanent time-out too.

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

They're using our tax dollars to sue a state we support. Enough is enough.

that about sums it up...pretty sad really

American Patriots Immediate Planning

http://bit.ly/bznK2C


"The American Patriots Are Coming!" to AZ Oct. 22-24

"Speaking Truth To Power"

http://bit.ly/9mlTEu

HOLDER MUST BE REPLACED NOW.

His first lawsuit is going to get laughed out of court , Unless they find a lib symp judge

He has no standing for a second lawsuit YET , for racial anything.

Who wants to bet a Vegas steak dinner that they set up false flag operations as soon as the law goes into effect?
I bet there is a suit filed the first day , if not by the feds , then la raza , maldef or some other advo group.

The KEY WORDS here are

Holder said. "And the Arizona statute, if you look at the guts of it, really puts in place a whole variety of things that are inconsistent with what we have decided to do as a federal government."

THERE YOU HAVE IT --- THE OBAMINATION FEDS ARE PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT LAWS THEY WILL ENFORCE IN SPITE OF WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT!

I CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING. CAN YOU?