Thread: Exclusive: DOJ v. State of Arizona

Sorry, kind of long but it makes some very good points about the children of illegals and sanctuary cities.
-----------------

The United States Department of Justice clearly has the state of Arizona in its legal sights.

A news article appeared in Sunday's Washington Times about the legal challenge being mounted by the United States Department of Justice in an effort to block the state of Arizona from enforcing an immigration law that was promulgated by the leaders of that state.

On Sunday, July 11, 2010 Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" interviewed Eric Holder, the Attorney General on a number of issues including two subjects that are of particular relevance to the immigration issue in general and with the Arizona situation in particular.

Here is a link to a video of Bob Schieffer's interview of Attorney General Holder as well as with a copy of the transcript (pdf document) of that interview.

The first issue that was covered during the interview was the Russian spy case that resulted in the seemingly speedy resolution of the identification of the ten Russian agents who were operating in our country on behalf of Russia. Purportedly they did not pass any classified material to Russia. Holder said that the United States government opted to simply exchange these agents for four people who had been arrested in Russia for assisting the West with intelligence gathering. Holder also said that there were a number of reasons that the government decided to not prosecute the Russian agents because it had been determined that one of the individuals, an unidentified male was preparing to travel to France and there were concerns that he might head from Russia from France and thwart efforts to remove him. Holder also made some extremely vague references to other reasons why no criminal charges had been sought against the spies.

Actually I had a hunch that perhaps the issue for the administration was to terminate the ten year old investigation for another reason- to prevent any of the individuals who had been meeting with the Russian spies from being identified. Remember that early news reports indicated that a major financier for an unidentified political party had been one of a number of individuals who had met with at least one of the ten spies. Let me make this perfectly clear- this is just pure speculation on my part- but you have to admit- this would not be beyond the realm of possibility- would it?)

Is anyone willing to bet if the names of those who met with the spies in the United States will ever be released?

BOB SCHIEFFER:
One question that we've gotten a lot of e-mails on and a lot of calls at CBS News: What happens now to the children?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
The children have all been repatriated. We did so consistent with what their parents' wishes were, and to the extent that we had children who were, close to majority or majority, they made their own decisions as to where they wanted to go. So the children have all been handled, I think, in an appropriate way.

BOB SCHIEFFER:
Because some of those children, because they were born here, would actually be U.S. citizens.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
Right. And to the extent that they had the ability to make choices, they were old enough to make them they made their decisions and they've gone back with their parents.

Think about that brief exchange about the fate of the children born to Russian spies. Commonsense prevailed here. The sort of commonsense that evaporates whenever the administration advocates for open borders and the immigration anarchy that would undoubtedly result if "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" was to be enacted.

It is to be presumed that a number of the United States citizen children, especially the younger ones, had no idea about the duplicitous nature of their parents' lives and were therefore not to be blamed for the violations of law committed by their parents. However, the parents were sent packing and they were given the option of either having their children accompany them on their voyage to their home country or remain in the United States with other care givers.

If the same situation involved illegal aliens, even illegal aliens who had been convicted of committing felonies- the outcry from the so-called immigrant rights groups to not take the children from their parents would have been absolutely deafening!


Next I want to remind you that the spies had been highly effective at insinuating themselves into the United States in furtherance of their goals to gather intelligence and potentially recruit assets in the United States. In order to do this they created false identities for themselves ("legends" in the vernacular of the world of intelligence operatives).

This is precisely the same way that criminals and terrorists seek to create alternative identities for themselves as an "embedding" tactic as described by the 9/11 Commission in describing the way that terrorists seek to hide in plain sight.

The next part of Mr. Holder's interview dealt specifically with the law suit his agency, the Department of Justice has filed against the state of Arizona and Governor Brewer.

Mr. Schieffer asked why racial profiling was not a real issue in the law suit and Holder tapped danced his way around the question and left the door open to the idea that the Justice Department would watch for evidence of such profiling if the law is enforced.

Holder then talked about pre-emption. The idea that the law of Arizona interfered with a host of issues that are purely the domain of the federal government - where the enforcement and administration of the immigration laws are concerned. Herein lies some really interesting double-talk. Consider this segment from the interview that includes the entire discussion of the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona:

BOB SCHIEFFER:
Let's turn to the other big story of the week. You filed suit to ask a judge to overturn Arizona's new immigration law. It has put Republicans in a rage. Here's what Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said. He said, "Suing the people of Arizona for what the federal government has utterly failed to do will not help secure our borders."
Senators Kyl and McCain, the Arizona Senators, say, "Attorney General Holder speaks to the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration law, but what are people of Arizona to do when the federal government fails its responsibility?" So why did you file this lawsuit?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
I understand, first off, the frustration of the people of Arizona and the concerns that they have with regard to the amount of illegal immigration that occurs. But the solution that the Arizona legislature came up with is inconsistent with our federal constitution. It is responsibility of the federal government to decide immigration policy. And what the Arizona con-- the Arizona legislature came up with was a statute that is inconsistent with the federal constitution. It's preempted by the federal constitution. On the basis of preemption, we decided to file a lawsuit. We have an immigration policy that takes into account a whole variety of things; international relations, national security concerns, and it is the responsibility of the federal government, as opposed to states doing it on a patchwork basis to decide exactly what it is our policy should be with regard to immigration. And it was on that basis that we filed a lawsuit.

BOB SCHIEFFER:
You've heard the same criticism that I have. Some are saying that it's just all politics, what you're trying to do is to brand Republicans as anti-immigration, or in fact anti-Hispanic, before the elections in November.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
Not true at all. The basis for this was a legal determination by those of us at the Justice Department that the law was inconsistent with the constitution. And there, I think one has to also understand that there are a substantial number of Republicans and people in law enforcement who thought that the decision that we made to file this lawsuit was, in fact, the correct one. So it is not a monolith. It’s not a Republican monolith here where people are saying in the Republican Party that this was an inappropriate decision.

BOB SCHIEFFER:
When the Arizona law was first passed, both you and the president expressed concerns that it would lead to racial profiling because it allows the police, if they think someone might be in this country illegally it gives them the right to stop them and they have to produce papers to show that in fact they are citizens. Yet, your lawsuit doesn't talk at all about racial profiling, or if it even mentions it it's just barely. It just talks about the federal government is being preempted from a duty that is has to perform. Why did you choose to go that route?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
Well, we wanted to go out with what we thought was our strongest initial argument and to focus on what we thought is the most serious problem with the law as it now exists. It doesn't mean that if the law, for whatever reason, happened to go into effect that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had and whether or not-- see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact. And if that was the case we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.

BOB SCHIEFFER:
Are you saying, though, that states and local governments have no responsibility when it comes to enforcing immigration policy, that that's solely the responsibility of the federal government?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
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. 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. And it is on that basis that we decided to file a lawsuit.

Arizona's law simply parallels the federal statutes concerning the requirement of alien registration. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing about the Arizona immigration law that establishes policy. There is nothing about the Arizona law that deals with international relations of national security. The law simply requires, as does the federal law, that any alien present in the state of Arizona who is 18 years of age or older carry proof of alien registration. The point being that this proof would actually enhance national security. Any alien whose presence in the United States is unknown to the federal government may pose a threat to the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. The effect of this law would be to help the United States government to be made aware of the presence of illegal aliens whose presence in the United States is presumably unknown to the federal government if they don't have proof of "alien registration."

I would defy anyone, including Attorney General Holder to explain how notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens in our country would be harmful to national security! If these aliens are illegally present and "undocumented" the federal government has no official way of being aware of their presence in our country, let alone what they may be up to!

Remarkably, Mr. Holder also made the following statement:

BOB SCHIEFFER:
Are you saying, though, that states and local governments have no responsibility when it comes to enforcing immigration policy, that that's solely the responsibility of the federal government?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
States and local governments can certainly help the federal government enforce immigration laws....

Stop and give that statement some serious thought. The Attorney General says that state and local governments can certainly help the federal government enforce immigration laws?!"

How do cities and states that subscribe to the insane practice of creating "sanctuaries" help the federal government enforce the immigration laws?

If you want to make a case for pre-emption, reason would dictate that blocking the federal government from access to such vital information would have a negative impact on national security. The creation of a "sanctuary city" would, in my humble opinion entice illegal aliens to run our nation's borders with the goal of reaching those cities where these illegal aliens would be safe from discovery by the federal government. Let us go back to the immigration statutes that deal specifically with this very issue: Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324. In fact, this is not only a matter of pre-emption - it is a matter of violating the federal laws that deem it a felony to engage in the foregoing activities:

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3)

The entire point to the creation of a "sanctuary city" is to conceal illegal aliens from the federal government!

Here is the entire statutory section concerning these crimes.

Rather than chastising a true political leader- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and members of her state's legislature - the President of the United States needs to take his oath of office seriously and secure our nation's borders and do whatever is necessary to make certain that there is real integrity within the immigration system where immigration benefits and the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States are concerned. It is time for the politicians in Washington to live up to their oaths of office as well.

It is unacceptable that the citizens of this nation be alienated by their own government especially where border security and the enforcement and administration of our nation's immigration laws are concerned!

A country without secure borders can no more stand than can a house without walls.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp

Very good article and many good points. Kinda scary to think what will happen if Arizona loses this battle. The Federal Government has refused for decades to secure the border. Now, Arizona and other Border States may be told they can not enforce National OR State Boundaries.
I could not have imagined such a scenerio a few years ago, but "change" is definately happening.