9 states back AZ in obama administration action against AZ

[justashooter 430]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_states

By DAVID RUNK, Associated Press Writer David Runk, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 15, 3:50 am ET

DETROIT – States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

[Atencio 43]

I don't think much will happen with this.

I remember a few years back all the border states got together and tried to pressure the Feds on immigration.

Nothing happened. It doesn't even matter if it is a Liberal or Conservative. In the end they are just worried

about getting re-elected.

[CDAgirlMI 51]

I like Cox!

[Pooky 3,778]

Some cities are boycotting AZ, others are declaring their support.

Some states are supporting AZ, none have, as yet, come out in support of the legal challenge.

The government opposes AZ.

Most of the people support AZ.

And all because the Federal government won't carry out its responsibility to enforce current Federal law consistently and effectively. And I didn't think immigration was going to have as big an impact in November as the healthcare shambles.

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

I like Cox!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states,"

Of course they failed to fully quote the eminent Mr. Cox when he went on to say that nine states was roughly 50% of the states...

[tallcoolone 102]

10 states and more coming. I smell Civil War

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some cities are boycotting AZ, others are declaring their support.

Some states are supporting AZ, none have, as yet, come out in support of the legal challenge.

The government opposes AZ.

Most of the people support AZ.

And all because the Federal government won't carry out its responsibility to enforce current Federal law consistently and effectively. And I didn't think immigration was going to have as big an impact in November as the healthcare shambles.

Yeah, keep framing it like that so you can sleep better at night. That's really what the DOJ's legal fight over SB1070 is all about. Just close your eyes and keep telling yourself its got nothing to do with sticking up for our beloved Constitution.

[Pooky 3,778]

Yeah, keep framing it like that so you can sleep better at night. That's really what the DOJ's legal fight over SB1070 is all about. Just close your eyes and keep telling yourself its got nothing to do with sticking up for our beloved Constitution.

Keep kidding yourself that the only reason the DoJ is challenging this is that they think they're sticking up for our beloved Constitution, if it keeps the nightmares at bay.

And what happens if the Supreme Court sides with Arizona and the DoJ wasn't sticking up for the Constitution after all, but was trying to sabotage a State's endeavour to maintain the rule of law?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Keep kidding yourself that the only reason the DoJ is challenging this is that they think they're sticking up for our beloved Constitution, if it keeps the nightmares at bay.

And what happens if the Supreme Court sides with Arizona and the DoJ wasn't sticking up for the Constitution after all, but was trying to sabotage a State's endeavour to maintain the rule of law?

Any red-blooded American who has read SB1070 should be concerned about the implications of a law that gives law enforcement the authority to detain someone without bail merely on suspicion of their legal status. Constitutional matters should never be a popularity contest and history has shown that such landmark decisions by the Supreme Court were often at odds with popular sentiment. But please, continue being a cheerleader for SB1070 because you believe states have legal precedent to circumvent our beloved Constitution whenever they feel the Fed Gov't. isn't doing its job.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

[ready4ONE 5,400]

http://news.yahoo.co...igration_states

By DAVID RUNK, Associated Press Writer David Runk, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 15, 3:50 am ET

DETROIT – States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

[Atencio 43]

Any red-blooded American who has read SB1070 should be concerned about the implications of a law that gives law enforcement the authority to detain someone without bail merely on suspicion of their legal status.

You can't post bail for being detained on any crime. You have to be arrested first. You can all ready be detained if police have reasonable suspicion. You get pulled over for a traffic ticket you are being detained as you wait to see if the office will give you a ticket. It is interesting that you keep bringing up the Constitution in your arguments. The Constitution does not say you can't be detained to check immigration status. In fact on the lawbooks is this quote:

"Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

As stated Arizona is merely enforcing a law all ready on the books. So really the argument in this case is the State vs. Federal Government enforcing immigration.

I have said before I don't really like the Arizona law. I don't particularly care for the idea of checking immigration status anymore than you do. My hope is that this law and increasing state supports will cause the Feds to do something serious about the illegal immigration problem.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You can't post:

"Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

A misdemeanor which upon CONVICTION, not suspicion, CONVICTION, could lead to imposition of a $100 fine [considerably cheaper than replacing a lost or stolen green card] and 30 days imprisonment, ok that sucks, but it also is an indicator of just how heinous a crime has been committed.

Now look at those who froth here on VJ about how to prevent, kill or injure anyone who commits, committed or is thinking of committing said heinous crime. We are talking about a misdemeanor crime, and some think there is no amount of money and force that should not be used to prevent it.

Oh, but they aren't racist.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

A misdemeanor which upon CONVICTION, not suspicion, CONVICTION, could lead to imposition of a $100 fine [considerably cheaper than replacing a lost or stolen green card] and 30 days imprisonment, ok that sucks, but it also is an indicator of just how heinous a crime has been committed.

Now look at those who froth here on VJ about how to prevent, kill or injure anyone who commits, committed or is thinking of committing said heinous crime. We are talking about a misdemeanor crime, and some think there is no amount of money and force that should not be used to prevent it.

Oh, but they aren't racist.

So go driving around without your D/L in protest!