DOJ vs. Arizona: The battle over preemption; Updated with complaint link
Scroll for updates…
Here it comes. After months of advance hype and threats, Team Obama is reportedly set to file suit against the state of Arizona over its immigration enforcement law. The Washington Post says the filing could come today.
The word of the day: “Preemption.”
The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said…The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.
But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.
Rosemary Jenks at Numbers USA has some helpful legal context:
The Supreme Court has stated clearly and often that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress “plenary power” over immigration policy, meaning that Congress has virtually unlimited authority to regulate immigration into the United States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. In immigration matters, the courts have consistently held that this means that states may enact immigration-related laws that go as far as, but no further than, duly enacted federal laws, except in areas where Congress has specifically preempted state action. (The primary example of Congress preempting state action is 8 U.S.C. 1324b(h)(2), which prohibits states and localities from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” which is why states and localities must tie E-Verify mandates to the issuance of business licenses.) Congress has not preempted state or local action regarding any of the federal laws that the new Arizona law seeks to enforce, so long as the state law goes no further than existing federal law. The Arizona law was drafted meticulously to ensure that it complies fully with the U.S. Constitution and with federal immigration laws.
Hans Bader noted last year that left-wing attorneys are selective supporters of preemption doctrine:
Other Obama appointees, like attorney general Eric Holder, are also big supporters of gun control. (Holder has argued that the Second Amendment does not protect any individual right).
Many (but not all) state constitutions protect the right to possess a firearm. But liberal administrations often seek to use federal workplace laws to try to override rights protected by state constitutions or laws. For example, the Clinton Administration argued that a federal law called Title VII overrode California’s broad equal-protection guarantees, which forbade racial quotas and preferences in government contracting, college admissions, and public employment. This “preemption” argument was rejected by a federal appeals court in Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997). (Ironically, liberal lawyers often oppose preemption when it expands individual freedom, like federal curbs on baseless state-court lawsuits. The Obama Administration opposes preemption when it would prevent trial lawyers from bringing lawsuits).
SB1070 author Kris Kobach responded to the preemption issue back in April:
NLJ: How did you ensure that S.B. 1070 conforms with federal pre-emption doctrine, which is likely to be the major basis for challenging the law?
KK: The provision of the law that many have focused on is the one makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry registration documents on his person. They fail to mention that an individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). Those provisions have been around since 1940, making it a crime to fail to register or carry certain documents. The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.
The principle that protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of concurrent enforcement. This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. Similarly, if a state officer acts in a way to assist the federal government in that action, he concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.
That principle guides any interpretation of S.B. 1070.
The controlling Supreme Court precedent is 1976′s De Canas v. Bica. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.
The Arizona law is scheduled to take effect July 29 — and the open-borders mob is gearing up. Remember Saul Arellano? The now-10-year-old son of illegal alien deportation fugitive Elvira Arellano has been hauled back from Mexico to join pro-illegal alien activists on another amnesty march to the Washington.
Good thing such kiddie human shield antics don’t cut it in a rational court of law.
***
Related: Arizona Democrats running as fast as they can away from Obama.
Update: Here you go.
Update: You can find the complaint here via William Jacobson.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsObama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Gingrich channels open-borders SEIU; Rubio rebukes; Update:Newt retreats
January 25, 2012 10:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 Comments
Obama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Obama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Rick Perry and the Macaca Media
October 3, 2011 10:08 AM by Michelle Malkin
91 Comments
Categories: Immigration
JustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like ThisPundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentDaily Caller
» Documents likely contradict Warren’s claim of not knowing Harvard promoted her as minority
The attack on this law won’t be limited to one issue.
Preemption presents a very weak argument here. I don’t see a “conflict of laws”, and I seriously doubt a Federal District judge will, either.
The more the illegals make a fuss, the more it seems we are being over run by them. In the long run, the worse for the illegals, the Democrats and Obama.
Well, that’s certainly unprecedented…
So are sanctuary cities preempting federal law? Isn’t that what they, the Obama quagmire, saying?
I would think that somewhere in this country some one would have good sense (I call it good sense because it is not common anymore) to understand that when the government will not enforce it’s laws, the State has the right to make and enforce those same laws. The federal government has no right to destroy a Sovereign State because that same federal government is inept. Isn’t it amazing, 18 months is office and Obama is already a lame duck president.
So let me see, the laws that states have against bank robbery are now preempted because there is a federal law against bank robbery??
And how about sexual harassment, murder, kidnapping ….
This could be interesting.
If this is appealed, it will be heard by the 9th Circus Court of Liberal Activist Declarations in San Fransisco, won’t it?
That Court is the most overturned of all the Circuit Courts by the Supreme Court.
It is possible that the Obama DoJ knows it’s on shaky ground with this lawsuit, but are filing it anyway so the political team in the White House can use the fight with the State of Arizona for it’s political strategy this fall.
It could all be for intimidation value, PR, and political messaging and posturing, before the final ruling goes against them in the end.
That is exactly the kind of behavior I expect from this group of Alinskyite leftists in DoJ and the WH.
It’s not about the law, it’s about electioneering and power for themselves.
HOLY COW!!! After all the HYPE and THREATS, the day has finally arrived… As the BRAVE say, BRING IT ON…
Something just clicked for me – the illegal ObamaCare plan, the illegal illegals lawsuit – Obama is clearly trying to help his supporters, the trial lawyers.
Holder has to walk a fine line in his argument as well. They can’t throw the door wide open in a way that AZ would be able to introduce the Fed’s inept and corrupt lack of enforcement of current immigration/border laws.
I’m looking forward to this case being tried openly. Funny IF they will claim its about preemption when their case so far in the media has been about civil rights violations.
The best they got in the face of reality is a technicality?
Not much of a case.
They could save everyone time and money and just take this to the Supreme Court now.
Just more of Obambi & co’s “road show”. Hopefully, very embarrasing for all of them. Does make you wonder when we reach the “tipping point” and only the completely ignorant, hopelessly brain-dead, still supportive minorities, are the only remaining approving voters out there.
GET EM MICHELLE!
Right! Plus, as I’m fond of pointing out, admiralty law is very clearly a Federal matter, but most states with navigable waters (which is a surprising number) have admiralty laws of their own.
Just saw that Justice Anthony Kennedy has decided not to consider retiring from SCOTUS until some time after 2013.
I hope and pray that he is thinking about how he got sucker-punched during 0′s State of the Union Speech.
Another 5-4 decision on the way. Which direction? Gird your loins, my friends.
Be strong Gov. Brewer and all those in AZ who are having to go through this, please. There is no reason in the world this should be happening. It is just for show and to make this bho feel good is his small mind. It seems holder is going to get another hit today. The former justice official will be testifying in the black panther case today in dc.
I will pray for AZ to win this lawsuit.
L
ATTENTION EVERYONE:
Just got this from a friend and responded …
If you don’t do anything else today, please answer this MSNBC Poll question and forward it on to as many people as you can.
The silent majority must not be silent on this one.
Once and for all let’s tell them how we feel.
Answer This ONE Question! – Then Pass It Along!
Currently 95.4% For 4.6% Against
Oh to be a judge on this one. I’d look at the DOJ lawyer and ask, “So, you are aserting it is illegal for the state of AZ to enforce a Federal law that you, while legally obligated to enforce, will not enforce?”
Pencil tapping………..
DesertLover#16,
Done! Also on foxnews.com a poll on the black panther thing if you all would like to vote.
L
Now 95.8% for and 4.2% against.
letget … thanks for the heads up on the “other” BP in the news …
Headed there now …
Sniff sniff. Smells like the decision that overturned Hazelton Pa’s law.
Case over! Arizona will win this if Obama & Holder are naive enough to pursue it.
Well, at least we agree with the DOJ on something. Now if we could just get them to understanding the meaning of the word “responsibility.”
God Bless Kris Kobach.
Make sure to donate to NumbersUSA as they are the single most effective anti-illegal immigration lobby out there.
The Feds claim to have pre-empted immigration and border enforcement? The by God, let’s see them get EMPTing!
Obama will lose this one.
But we should expand deportation to include liberals. They reject American ideal, so we should reject them.
Done. It’s 2 million+ votes against 92,000.
I’ve said this before, but;
If this lawsuit (that nobody in the Obama administration will admit to having read) was as blantantly “ill conceived” as the Obama administration would like us to believe…..why has it taken over 2 MONTHS to formulate convincing legal argument in opposition to a 16 PAGE LAW?!?!?
Even a 1st grader can read faster than that!!
The only answer I’ve been able to come up with is that they can’t find anything in the AZ law that is unconstitutional – since the federal law that it’s based on is already proven to be constitutionally sound.
This post confirms my suspicions.
The latest front in Obama’s War On The States.
@NJ-Aviator – #28…..I’m “hoping” that will happen at the ballot box come November….
To which Arizona can cite sources showing that the Federal government has not enforced the law. To me this would seem like the Federal government, by not enforcing the Federal laws, has abdicated its claim to the preemption doctrine.
My Thanks to all of you that have taken the time to vote on that MSNBC poll I referenced in my #16 … WOW dan708 #29 … now I have to wonder if they will even report the results of the poll since it is such a staggeringly overwhelming vote against MSNBC’s liberal stance and open-borders agenda …
It sure would be a hoot if the attorneys for AZ got this bho on the stand to tell all American’s why he is not doing his duty as pres. to protect us from invaders. The attorney’s could get all border states gov. to give testimony also on what their states are dealing with.
L
Why pick on Arizona when they just want to do a job the federal government won’t do?
Arizona should countersue for all the costs of the feds failure. Plus court costs.
MSNBC has 92,000 viewers ? Who knew…
It explains Obama not responding to Brewer like he said he would. Of course that lie will not be pointed out by the MSM. Nobody is shocked by this. Once conservatives have power we need to go over our sovereignty laws and make them Obama-Holder proof for future traitors that may defraud the American people and gain power.
HEY LOOK HERE! Pay no attention to my lack of leadership while millions of gallons of oil pollute the Gulf of Mexico. Remember, I’m the pro-environment president!
Praying for AZ and for the feds to get their clock cleaned on this one. Failure to perform a sworn duty should be considered dereliction of duty in my book. In a perfect world it would be used to impeach Holder and ‘Bambi.
I am grateful SC Justice Kennedy is going to hang in there for awhile.
If Arizona loses this lawsuit, does that mean that States can no longer enforce any federal laws? If a serial killer kidnaps a child in State A and travels to State B, making it a federal crime, does that mean that the police in State B cannot arrest him even if they pull him over for speeding? Do they have to let him go because they cannot enforce federal laws? That would be insane.
#30, Indy Rich:
Unless Anthony Kennedy suddenly becomes Anatoly Kennedy (which he has done in the past), the decision will most likely go 5-4, striking down the Federal Govt’s suit.
This is all a purely political maneuver. They look good to the La Raza crowd for standing up to “racist” laws and if it passes it’s a HUGE victory.
What is sad about this whole lawsuit is that Holder and Obama are willing to sue a state over a law that refers to the Federal law; yet they are willing to drop the charges on a case they already won regarding voter intimidation.
SPeaking of the NBPP case the former Justice Dept attorney just testified about the reasons the case was dropped to the civil rights commision.
24Klady #41,
We need to keep the conservative SC judges in our prayers for health. I am also praying that in 2012 this bho will get the boot!
L
I think a judge needs to ask the Obama lawyers one simple question:
What part of illegal did you not get?
Arizona should counter sue the Federal Government for arbitrarily deciding which laws it will enforce and which they won’t. The Executive branch is under obligation to enforce constitutionally passed laws whether they agree with them or not.
And, while they are at it, they should send a bill to Mexico for all of the law enforcement costs, social programs, hospitialization, litter clean up, and anything else the illegal Mexicans have cost Arizona.
letget …
bho = Boot Him Out …
iamsaved …
how about we sue Mexico to recover all the unpaid taxes on all the money sent back to Mexico that was illegally earned in the USA? …
Obama has no feet left to shoot!
Obama-impeach him for dereliction of duty
I see that a Sheriff down in AZ is getting death threats over his support of the law (it is not Sherrif Joe).
Arizona should sue the Feds, and Obama personally since he’s in office, for damages that resulted from their willful disregard of their duties.
They believe? No, it is one of their primary responsibilities that goes hand in hand with guaranteeing our sovereignty. Instead, they take a political position in a pissing contest with the State of Arizona?
They have acknowledged that it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to enforce our borders, so do it! Why are they wasting taxpayer dollars to argue for something they already know?Friggin’ morons!
It is my police department’s job to provide community securtiy. But, that does not meean that I forfeit my rights of self-defense while waiting for the police department to respond. I will do what is necessary, regardless…and, so should Arizona, or any other state who is forced by federal intransigence, to bide time waiting for a mandated response that may never come, or one which has proven to be totally inadequate.
So instead of suing AZ over their law, start enforcing the laws on the books and the AZ law really wont matter one way or another. Problem solved.
Message to those who threaten. Don’t miss. We won’t.
Does the Supremacy clause give the federal government the authority through either negligence or on purpose to allow great harm to come to a state?
Does a state only have the choice of injury, not self defense, is centralized government that powerful?
What is the timeline for this lawsuit? Will it be finished before the law takes effect later this month? Will it linger on past the November election so it will become part of the election rhetoric?
Nothing Obama does is for the right reasons. It is all political. So is this. I suspect Obama sees this as a tool to help dems get elected in November.
The Democrats will not roll over in November. Thye have some tricks up their sleeve. Spending stimulus money in selected areas to generate Democrat support. Suing Americans on behalf of illegals from other countries, blaming Bush.
I know one spin is that Bush (and capitalism) made such a mess of the economy that Obamas policies were only able to slow the speed of descent in chaos. Without his leadership, we would have gone under because of Bush.
In other words, the ecomony is bad but its Bush that did it and Obama did good saving us from complete meltdown. No mention of Obamas votes in the Senate from 2006-2008 that helped that decline of course. That inane argument is gaining traction and shows they are currently desparate.
But what have Republicans got going? Michael Steele making ridiculously stupid comments? I know Howard Dean is a goof but really Michael.
Lindsay Graham, McCain still leading the party. Where are our good leaders? I can’t even find a moderate Dem anymore. They are all extreme left Pelosi loons. Scary.
Regardless of the outcome of this suit, Arizona can just continue to enforce it’s own laws. If the Feds can continue to just do whatever they want, States can do what they want and ignore the Feds.
Yeah, and if anyone stumbles across such (the operating term here being “rational”) please let us know — though I highly doubt you will find one in the Pacific Northwest. So the upshot is that “kiddie human shield antics” are in fact effective.
I now agree with those who think Arizona simply should have said they will start enforcing Federal Law — and at once. While the intentions were sound, valid, and legal, once again the right underestimated the blowback from the left and it looks like we have another tactical blunder on our hands.
Defense against invasion is one of the primary motivators for States to combine into the Union; Arguably, it is THE primary motivator. If the Federal government not only shirks this duty but also criticises and punishes States that try to protect themselves, why should the Union continue?
and the communist/racist Social Justice Dept declares war on Americans. led by General Obeyme.
these are dark days. I never thought I’d have to live through one of the worst periods in the history of my country. I never thought we’d actually elect someone who hated America this much and actively went to war with those who would defend her.
it’s just unbelievable that we have to have this kind of awful destruction of our society and culture inflicted on us every day by this clownish and vicious regime.
There have not been any moderate Democrats for a very long time. The extreme Left hijacked the party after Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian assassin in 1968.
No reason but to impose tyranny.
Dissolution is the only solution.
I loved Jan Brewer pointing to the sign Obama put up saying an area of Arizona was too dangerous to go into. She said “Does this look safe to you?”
She is right and Obama is wrong, but look what Obama did now. Only because he has cover from the MSM to pursue policies that the American people DO NOT want.
Elections have consequences. At least we still have them. Obamas election was just an anti Bush culmination. Hopefully, voters will regain some of their senses although they seem to be having a hard time recognizing that the financial meltdown was precipitated by Barney Frank and Cris Dodd passing legislation requiring banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give home loans to people that could not afford them.
That truth needs to come out as well.
T-Bone …
Actually the laws Dodd and Frank pushed to absurdity were originally passed by Jimmy Carter and then further enhanced and enforced by Bill Clinton in 1993 … check out the Community Reinvestment Acts (CRA) … Dodd and Frank were just the latest Dem-witted idiots involved and thanks to those that went before them were the ones in charge when it reached the point of no return …
On Fox News DOJ officials stated they will not prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case because the suspects are black and the victims are white.
Racial Profiling… for me not for thee.
Dear Leader has a vision which is no vision at all, no ideals and no purpose. This individual is the ultimate destroyer who not only wants to distort and pervert this countries history but to completely annihilate it. It appears as if this individual does, but has no concept of aftermath, and if he does it is deliberate. This individual is holding court over the piecemeal destruction of everything Americans hold dear with not a wit of shame. He will be gone one day but in his childish mind he will laugh every single day about what he has done.
Breaking on Fox=suit has been filed against AZ.
L
King George the Mad committed a lot of Intolerable Acts himself-He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
===
George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference . When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)
William Ayres awaits Bambi’s final power grab. If not Bambi they will have another Mad George.
In my wildest dreams I never thought I’d see the day my own gubmint would overlook/dismiss a federal crime due to race preferences (voter intimidation).
In my wildest nightmares I never thought sovereign states would experience intimidation from our own DOJ while attempting to protect their citizens from invasion.
Dark days and frightening nights.
AZNeanderthal
I thought you were on your way to Montana? You may be needed in Arizona if this thing boils over. If you’re headed out soon, happy trails and keep your powder dry.
Incredible. I hope the Feds get their behind kicked.
Holder is an ignoramus so it shouldn’t be that hard.
But again, when will this be heard?
I see they are asking for an injunction before the law goes into effect July 29th. Does that mean they will get an injunction and use that and the lawsuit to campaign on?
In the meantime the question of right and wrong will not be decided until after the November elections. Since I believe AZ is in the right here, I would love to see that affirmed by the courts prior to the election. That bullet would then be put in our gun and not held to our heads by the MSM (misconstruing the facts to their benefit) during an election.
Maybe Holder will drop the case if we spread the rumor that the NBPP sponsored the bill.
Ok, I’ve read the law (unlike the Obama White House), and no where does it preempt the federal government. It simply says that state and local police can ask to see a legally detained person’s ID if there’s suspicion that he/she is here illegally. Then, if they have none, they turn them over to ICE — to be released forthwith, no doubt. How is this doing the federal government’s job? Actually securing the border, and making determinations on what to do with illegal aliens, would be doing their job — which so far, they have not shown a willingness to do.
Generally, the rationale for an injunction is to preserve the status quo during litigation.
However, one criteria for an injunction is the strength of the underlying case…which here seems uncommonly weak.
We’ll know more when we see the DoJ filing…
How soon before we know which judge will be hearing this?
Maybe Arizona should secure the state line. You know, the southern one.
When a federal law falls in the woods, is it really a law? Has the federal government not rendered the law basically moot by a defacto policy of deliberate non-enforcement?
More Treason from da One.
As popular as this law is, I suspect a couple police chiefs are going to be looking for new jobs soon.
The case is assigned to Judge Neil V. Wake.
Nominated by President Bush on Oct. 22, 2003, Mr. Wake had his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 22, 2004, and was favorably reported out of committee on March 4, 2004.
A Phoenix native, Mr. Wake, 55, had been in private practice, specializing in commercial, administrative and constitutional litigation, appellate practice and Indian law. He served as a judge pro tempore on the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1985, 1992 and 1996-98, and is co-author of the Arizona Appellate Handbook.
Then there’s this…
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Hezbollah-US-Mexico-Border/2010/07/06/id/363858?s=al&promo_code=A38C-1
Then why doesn’t the Federal Government go after sanctuary cities as they violate the same policy?
You seem to be surprised, nothing at this stage comes as a shock!
Cal:
Oh, NO… Not the least surprised. I’m only mildly bemused we haven’t had a serious attack on this country coming from that direction.
I expect it.
Here’s a head-scratcher…where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government power to control immigration?
Looks like the complaint is twenty five pages, considering their history, how do we know anyone in the administration has read it?
Article I, Section 8:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,…”
I saw Gov Brewer dismissing the allegations of Obama that law enforecment in AZ does not support the law. She stated that they overwhelmingly support the law. I wonder if those 2 Sherrifs are Democrats and are LYING because of politics.
Oh, and watch out, Obama will have you dressed up in US Marshall uniforms with badges and 10 gallon hats so he can parade you around the White House like when he found some doctors that agreed with him.
Naturalizaton and immigration are two different things.
I agree.
Interestingly enough, there is no provision in the Constitution for Federal control of borders. Not that I find.
I want them to understand the words “illegal” and “enforcement”.
This is nothing more than the progessives “social justice” in other words “redistribution of wealth” at your expense!!
This law was written specifically to withstand the challenge under “preemption” by an attorney who has argued before SCOTUS. If it stands the test it must be implemented in all 50 States!!
This could be one of those hornet nest things the left never seems to see coming.
The unintended consequences just might be way bigger than Holder or Obama can imagine.
Its going to be fun fun fun…..
They foolishly assumed unwelcomed mass invasions would naturally be repulsed.
How could they account for the incredible, suicidally stupid voting behavior of the modern voter?
Arizona Republicans are going to renominate McCain.
No wonder our elites don’t take us seriously.
It is VERY hard to unseat an incumbent. Think of all the people that vote by name recognition. Oh Al Green, I lke his music. What, a different Al Green? Well, green is my favorite color.
That is why Obama is still looking good for 2012 and he knows it along with Nancy and even Harry.
Happy Trails-we are leaving about 5:am so Arizona will have to do without me for awhile. Our ballots are being mailed to a friend in Montana so I am covered.
We’ll be back before the next frost falls–by Freddie Fender
Powder dry, stacked and ready.
Fishing poles too.
Arizona was ready for this, and they will win.
Please get me into contact with a bookie that is giving odds. I want to place a bet that the Justice dept bid/suit will fail…big time….Holder and crowd is a joke…..so is the ACLU..someone send me the bookies number Please….I need to make money.
This corruption of AMERICAN values has been a process of slow, steady erosion. We have made many errors: opening voting to those who do not own property, making government entitlements a property right, electing U.S. senators by popular vote, etc, etc…
Of course there many good things we have done: voting rights for women, the riddance of the institution of slavery, defeat of fascism in Europe, defeat of communism (round one), etc, etc…
But on the whole, we have not been wise.
The FDF (Fraudulently Documented Foreigners) have at least two Governments working on their behalf: The U.S. government and the Mexican government.
The reason AZ decided they needed to enforce the federal immigration laws was because the federal government has been refusing to do so for a very long time. Since before the last amnesty that was supposed to be the last amnesty. Ever, according to Ted.
They really do think we’re that stupid.
I hope AZ voters don’t prove them right by returning the author of the last TWO amnesties to office.
You can count on McWeasel turning on the citizens.
If only Arizona had hired the New Black Panthers to stand around on the border, threatening the incoming illegals with nightsticks this would never have gone to court…