Here is a copy of the Complaint just filed by the United States against Arizona seeking to invalidate S.B 1070, the Arizona immigration bill. Copies also of the Civil Cover Sheet, Summons to the the State of Arizona, and Summons to Gov. Jan Brewer.
The U.S. also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with 10 Exhibits. Visit my Scribd site for additional documents.
The case is assigned to Judge Neil V. Wake.
Added: Here are links to the Exhibits to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
- Affidavit of James Steinberg
- Declaration of Michael Aytes
- Declaration of David Palmatier
- Declaration of Daniel Ragsdale
- Declaration of David Aguilar
- Declaration of Mariko Silver
- Declaration of Dominick Gentile
- Declaration of Tony Estrada
- Declaration of Roberto Villa Senor
- Declaration of Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris
U.S. v. Arizona – Complaint Filed 7-6-2010 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
i have to say, i hate it when people use that method to post documents.
i would greatly prefer a link to a pdf. this format slows my computer down.
I read it over and this is my takeaway.
1) they're doing their best, but its my understanding that states can enforce federal law. And they are basically whining that they are enforcing federal law.
2) their argument rests on the theory that they have chosen to fail to enforce the border as a matter of policy. you would think they didn't want to admit that.
3) well, at least now someone in the DOJ has read the bill. /snark
How can it be preemptive if it was written to mirror federal law?
I'd love for the Judge to say.. if the administration were doing their job in enforcing the laws of this nation, states wouldn't have to pass the same laws on the state level.
I'm browsing the thing right now, and noticing that there is a lot of language asserting that the laws are there to be exercised at the discretion of the Executive branch and Congress, including the option to choose NOT to enforce the law for the purpose of overarching foreign policy goals.
Blood-boiling moment thusfar: The Obamastration is using MexiPrez Calderon's comments on the law (or, as he said, the "low") and Mexican alarmism about it as an example of how it intrudes on diplomatic goals. From Page 15:
******Because S.B. 1070, in both its singularly stated purpose and necessary operation, conflicts with the federal government’s balance of competing objectives in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws, its passage already has had foreign policy implications for U.S. diplomatic relations with other countries, including Mexico and many others. S.B. 1070 has also had foreign policy implications concerning specific national interests regarding national security, drug enforcement, tourism, trade, and a variety of other issues. See, e.g.,Travel Alert, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico, Apr. 27, 2010, available at
http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial/contenido/comunicados/2010/abr//cp_121eng.html…*******
That link will take you to the English version of the Secretary of Exterior Relations website, which, among other things, says (bold mine):
********Under the new law, foreigners who do not carry the immigration documents issued to them when entering the United States may be arrested and sent to immigration detention centers. Carrying the available documentation, even before the law comes into force, will help avoid needless confrontations. As long no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time.*******
On Page 16, Calderon's speech is cited, and this comment is made:
******** S.B. 1070 has subjected the United States to direct criticism by other countries and international organizations and has resulted in a breakdown in certain planned bilateral and multilateral arrangements on issues such as border security and disaster management. S.B. 1070 has in these ways undermined several aspects of U.S. foreign policy related to immigration issues and other national concerns that are unrelated to immigration.*******
Oh, really. I wonder what those cool policy things the BHO people had in mind are that are now "undermined." I'll bet they're classified for some reason — the reasons why they're doing stuff for suspicious reasons always seems to be.
Wendy
Well, their argument actually is that their decision to not enforce the law should preempt Az's decision to enforce it. But that seems wrong.
Like if i kill a man at a post office, that is both a federal crime, and a state crime. The FG might decide it is not worth its time to go after me, but why should that limit the state's options?
My take from a first reading of the complaint:
1) Not enforcing Federal immigration laws is policy
2) When AZ asks someone that has been detained for criminal activity to prove their immigration status, they are taking away from the DHS's ability to deal with illegal alien criminals. Ok??
3) Making it a crime to transport illegals during the commission of another crime effects interstate commerce, or something.
It seems to boil down to, don't let AZ make the DHS do their job.
OK, so the DOJ decides to attack a State for following federal law and allows the New Black Panthers to violate the civil rights of voters. Are we sure that Eric Holder actually graduated from law school?
American Power tracked-back with, 'Obama Sues to Strike Down Arizona's SB 1070'.
Since I am not a lawyer, I would like to understand that in their final paragraph they demand to make the AZ law null and void. If, in fact, this case is won by the federal government how will that affect current federal immigration law on which this AZ law was promulgated? Is this a stealh precedent that could also reverse federal law?
Page 3 line 10 of the Complaint alleges:
"It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has well-founded fear of persecution or who has been a victim of a natural disaster."
"well founded fear of persecution"?!! I think they mean the "well funded audacity to game" Tax payers for free and unlimited healthcare, education, food stamps, housing.
Obama (+Pelosi) has this habit of invoking a vandalized interpretation of Art.1 sec. 8. to establish the privileges of Big Government. But this has to be the most absurd contortion of the 'Commerce Clause' yet.
You'd think the DOJ would have cited something more self-explanatory from the Constitution if the idea is to establish the Fed's preemptive role in border security. Something like Art. 4 Sec. 8.
Oh…can't use that because it contains the dirty 'R' word.
Article 4. Section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
If the whole argument of the suit is that SB1070 has encroached on the Fed's exclusive Constitutional right to protect state borders. Then please let Arizona counter-sue the Feds for failing/breaking their Constitutional obligation.
At least Judge Wake isn't a left-wing liberal judge appointment by Obama or Clinton, so we know it will be a fair trial at least that is based on rule of law. I was worried this thing might get political as the tyrants that rule us move farther into the rule of men.
A number of states including California have laws that have been on the books for decades that allow them to enforce federal immigration law so 1070 is not the first.
The Federal government trained the states including Arizona (California, Florida, Texas, etc.) to enforce federal immigration law, thus delegating their authority to the states.
According to the lawsuit, the Federal Government may decide which laws to enforce and which ones it shall not enforce. Does that mean that the executive branch can nullify the legislative branch on an official basis? Where is the Constitutional authority to do THAT?
Because the law suit appeals to executive branch policy, could Arizona through discovery subpoena the administration's memos and meeting minutes on this subject?
It says a lot that those clowns would quote the Constitution regarding *faithfully executing the laws of the land* while reserving the right to ignore "certain laws". I would dearly like to know which laws this administration has chosen not to enforce against citizens and legal aliens.
Furthermore, how on earth is Arizona's legislation a violation of the commerce clause? Is Obama's position that commerce clause protects illegal aliens "right" to cross state lines without fear of prosecution or deportation?
I live in Louisiana and it seems that the Federal government is doing everything possible to harm us. It is either personal safety, as in AZ. Or issues of job security and economy in LA.
I feel that secession is the only answer. The paths of the Federal government and that of the majority of Americans has diverged and I don't see it getting back.
Could Arizona file a counterclaim?
Regardless of how Judge Wake rules, this is on its way to the Supreme Court. How quickly will it get there? What would the process be to have this fast tracked to the Supreme Court?
Perhaps Jan Brewer can bring Mrs. Krentz in with an affidavit as an exhibit to the motion? Maybe other victims of kidnappings and such?
Reading briefs is definitely interesting; for instance, if you search for Aguilar's full name in quotes using the "old" search at my site you'll find things like his fellow agents voting no-confidence in him (yes, I've been covering the wider issue for a long time).
That said, the much more important thing to do is to actually do something. In case anyone would like to do something highly effective to support AZ and doesn't mind spending a few minutes doing some actual work, here are five things you can do:
http://24ahead.com/n/10092
If just a few hundred people did even just one of those we'd be on the way to resolving this matter. At the least, you can send that link to your social networks and encourage them to get involved.
Interesting that the first paragraph of the document reads "The United States" V.S. the State of Arizona. What comes to my mind is do all the States get to have a say in this? Most every poll shows that Americans want ENFORCEMENT! even if it means at the local level.
So how is this any different than the issue in De Canas v. Bica?
Seems like this question was already settled by the Supreme Court back in 1976.
The good news for the SCOTUS is that Justice Kennedy has no intention of retiring in the near future, or at least until after Barry Soetoro aka Obama is gone.
Strange that Obama is taking aim at a law that is identical to federal law and supports and complements that law on the purported ground of pre-emption; but the same Obama Administration refuses to bring legal action against sanctuary cities and governments which directly conflict with federal law and which make a 'piecemeal' quilt of federal immigration enforcement authority. Why it's almost like the Obama Administration doesn't want to enforce any laws against illegal aliens and wants to tear down the few laws that even suggest enforcement of those laws.
Oh man, the ScribDB format is killin me! You think it's possible to upload them right to your blog next time?
@A.W. and Cassie – I agree Scribd is slow, but since I don't have my own server, I know of no other way to post a pdf. Any better suggestions?