Thread: VICTORY!!! Ariz. immigration law challenge tossed

Last updated December 8, 2007 6:14 a.m. PT

Ariz. immigration law challenge tossed
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PHOENIX -- A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging a new Arizona law that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires businesses to verify whether applicants are eligible for employment.

The law takes effect Jan. 1.

In his Friday ruling, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake wrote that the lawsuit was premature because there was no evidence that anybody had been harmed, and that the plaintiffs - a coalition of business and immigrant rights groups - were suing the wrong people.

The ruling said the law gives only investigatory authority to the governor and state attorney general, who were named as defendants. Wake said county prosecutors, who weren't defendants, actually have the power to enforce the law.

Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for business groups in the suit, said they planned to file more information with the judge to answer what he sees as shortcomings in the complaint.

Alfredo Gutierrez, a spokesman for immigrant rights groups, said they plan to refile the lawsuit after Jan. 1, when they might be able to show damages caused by the law.

A spokesman for Gov. Janet Napolitano, the lead defendant in the lawsuit, said the governor's office had not yet read the ruling and had no immediate comment.

Napolitano signed the bill in July, saying that while immigration is a federal responsibility, Congress was apparently "incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs."

Under the law, any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to sanctions ranging from probation to a 10-day suspension of its business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... tions.html

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging new Arizona immigration law
Associated Press - December 8, 2007 8:54 AM ET

PHOENIX (AP) - A federal judge threw out a lawsuit that challenged a new Arizona law that prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, clearing the way for the restrictions to take effect in January.

In a ruling released Friday night, U.S. District Judge Neil Wake says the business and immigrant rights groups that filed the challenge sued the wrong government officials in trying to block enforcement of the law.

The ruling says the law gives only investigatory authority to the governor and state attorney general, who were sued in the challenge.

But Wake says county prosecutors, who weren't named as defendants in the lawsuit, actually have the power to enforce the law.
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=7469173

Ariz. immigration law challenge tossed
The Associated Press

PHOENIX --A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit seeking to block a new Arizona law that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires businesses to verify whether applicants are eligible for employment.

The law takes effect Jan. 1.

In his ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake wrote that the lawsuit was premature because there was no evidence that anybody had been harmed, and that the plaintiffs - a coalition of business and immigrant rights groups - were suing the wrong people.

The ruling said the law gives only investigatory authority to the governor and state attorney general, who were named as defendants. Wake said county prosecutors, who weren't defendants, actually have the power to enforce the law.

The plaintiffs had asked for a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for business groups in the suit, said they planned to file more information with the judge to answer what he sees as shortcomings in the complaint.

Alfredo Gutierrez, a spokesman for immigrant rights groups, said they plan to refile the lawsuit after Jan. 1, when they might be able to show damages caused by the law.

A spokesman for Gov. Janet Napolitano said the governor's office had not yet read the ruling and had no immediate comment.

Napolitano signed the bill in July, saying that while immigration is a federal responsibility, Congress was apparently "incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs."

The law is intended to curb Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the country. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants account for one in 10 workers in the Arizona economy.

Under the law, any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to sanctions ranging from probation to a 10-day suspension of its business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit had argued the law was an unconstitutional attempt by the state to regulate immigration, which is the responsibility of the federal government. The judge's ruling did not address that argument.

Attorneys for the state say the groups weren't reading the law correctly and that it does not conflict with federal law.
http://www.charlotte.com/nation/story/396450.html

I just saw this on the AP. This is awesome news!!! It just makes me wonder why three judges in other states understand the law the same way, but Judge Munley (Hazleton IIRA challenge) seems to be working off a different set of laws???

Originally Posted by corhanem

I just saw this on the AP. This is awesome news!!! It just makes me wonder why three judges in other states understand the law the same way, but Judge Munley (Hazleton IIRA challenge) seems to be working off a different set of laws???

Munley's an arrogant globalist who's demonstrated a decidedly anti-law-enforcement tendency. He's a scolder who panders to anyone opposed to open borders. His pompous condescension is the only trait that separates him from Neville Chamberlain.

Where is the civility?
Chris Simcox crosses the line
Marcy Newman
Guest Opinion
Issue date: 12/6/07 Section: Opinion

This fall Boise State University students were introduced to a new aspect of the Code of Conduct known as the "Statement of Shared Values." This statement, which went into effect this semester, makes it clear that freedom of speech is an important value we share on campus, as well as in the U.S. more generally, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility. Quoted in the statement is P.M Forni's ideal that "Being civil means being constantly aware of others and weaving restraint, respect and consideration into the very fabric of this awareness." It is in this context that BSU makes the commitment to all its students by promising that "Boise State strives to provide a culture of civility and success where all feel safe and free from discrimination, harassment, threats or intimidation." Some of the qualities that BSU will uphold under this framework are fairness, respect, and caring.

Although the Boise State administration took the time to craft such an admirable document one might wonder how it is that Chris Simcox, Founder and President of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, was invited to speak on campus. His vigilante organization is founded upon violent principles that target Latinos crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. According to human rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, since October 1994 there have been 10,000 people who have died crossing in order to work low-wage jobs in the U.S. or to reunite with family members. That figure reached record levels in April 2005 when Simcox founded his militia. Mexican deaths on the border are due to vigilante shootings as well as deaths related to people being forced to cross under more extreme conditions in order to avoid militias like the Minuteman. A lack of water, food, and extreme weather have contributed to these deaths as well as fear of vigilante groups detaining, harassing, and shooting them.

The Orwellian name of Simcox's vigilante group likens them to the Minutemen, the Massachusetts militia fighting for independence (albeit independence dependent upon the genocide of the indigenous population in the Americas), perhaps hoping that the association will make them seem patriotic. Likewise their "civil defense" title obscures the fact that they are offensively attacking innocent people crossing the border. In fact, the Minuteman organization, like all such post-9/11 organizations, inverts and distorts reality to serve their own political agenda. Indeed, the Minuteman militia would best be likened to the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that was founded upon the intimidation, harassment, and lynching of African Americans. Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose work yielded success in Idaho in 1999 when they shut down Richard Butler's Aryan Nation compound in northern Idaho. That same organization has been dedicated to documenting and fighting legal battles of those affected by the violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

By bringing Simcox and his ilk to campus we tread upon the safety of non-dominant students on campus. Simcox's hateful rhetoric is not only intimidating, it also has a violent past and present to back it up. Would BSU deem it in line with its commitment to civility by inviting the Ku Klux Klan to campus? Or does the "Statement of Shared Values" only apply to the majority white student body? It is perfectly appropriate to discuss issues related to the U.S.-Mexico border on campus, but it should be done in an academic context with non-white scholars or artists who are capable of engaging with the facts and who use research rather than weapons to make their points. There is no room for hate-speech on a university campus, especially one that claims to value civil discourse and respect.

Marcy Newman is an assistant professor in the English Department at Boise State
http://media.www.arbiteronline.com

Mexican deaths on the border are due to vigilante shootings....

It's difficult to stomach the arrogance and ignorance of these liberal profs. There has never been a serious charge of the MM harming anyone. I supposed the over 300 lives saved by the Minutemen count for nothing.

I just don’t understand why the courts ever even listen to this stuff…
Then to find out theses criminal harboring Fools sued the wrong people is even more laughable simply lacking in intellectual substance and not ever worth serious consideration… But yet the Judge will tell theses fool come back after the law takes effect and will see what you can sue for then LOL only in America…
You only In America can a criminal citizen sue the state that the law they are convicted off is hurting them in some way… But theses Jack Beepers aren’t even Americans.

I see nothing wrong if someone lives in another country and want to come on a real live bona fide visa to study and get an education here in America… But that’s as far as that goes for me.
They need to do it by following the laws.. But when that law is broken and some body calls them on it... Free speech volitions have nothing to do with it. To say the Americans that is enforces the laws is offensively attacking innocent people has more smells to it the our barn on a 100 degree day.
Free speech from someone who isn’t a citizen, and is in our country criminally as a student only gleesomely goes as far as the goodbye the are allowed to say when the go back…