Jan Brewer Will Beat Arizona Illegal Immigration Law Suits

8
293

Jan Brewer Will Beat Arizona Illegal Immigration Law Suits – Arizona Jan Brewer is reportedly very confident that her state will be able to beat the upcoming lawsuit brought forward by the federal government. The federal government is suing Arizona over their recently passed immigration law that allows police officers to request immigration documentation from individuals that they deem as “suspicious.”

The Justice Department which filed a lawsuit against the law, earlier this week is hoping to have the law nullified in the future. Brewer said in a statement that her state should not be punished for acting on an issue that the federal government had neglected for so long.

“As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” she said. She also went on to say that she felt that Arizona being attacked for their actions was not the way that the federal government should have gone about the issue.

“Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration,” Brewer said. Brewer believes that the law that was passed was constitutional, and will be upheld in court.
Experts have weighed in on the issue, and appear to be divided. It is clear that the lawsuit will not be an easy one to win for the federal government, but that does not mean that they will not be able to secure the victory. It will all come down to whether or not the court deems the law as “constitutional.”

8 COMMENTS

  1. US citizens who are naturalized have to carry their papers with them at all times, under this law. It’s like the yellow star in Nazi Germany. I’m sorry. There is no other reference. Passports in a back pocket get damaged and are expensive to replace. Russel Pearce crafted this law. Jan just signs everything. She signed a law making it legal to carry concealed weapons in Arizona with no training on how to fire them. The weapons are legal, yabetcha. She made it legal to shoot off firecrackers in Arizona. This with all the fires in the dry summers in Arizona. Someone should lock this woman up.

  2. It has been federal law since 1940 that legal aliens are required to carry their green cards or other entry permit. I think that the argument that the DOJ is making that this “conflicts with the federal government’s ability to enforce the federal law” is not going to hold up in court. The Supreme Court has the final word and I am confident that if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, which it appears they are willing to do, it will be upheld.

  3. If the author is reporting that Jan Brewer believes against all doubt that she will beat this, well, we in Arizona know our unelected GED governor who is the only governor in the nation without a college degree, isn’t very bright and could not even begin to understand complex legal issues of precedent and constitutionality. What she should have done is what our (elected) former governor Janet Napolitano did, is veto it to send back to the state legislature to amend until it is fair and will withstand judicial scrutiny. All this woman does is blame others and call the media “pathetic” for daring to report things like “my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany” and twisting it to mean “my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany” (her dad died a decade later and wasn’t in the service and never left the country, but instead of admit her befuddled shock that we can fact-check her in an instant thanks to the internet, she just blamed the pathetic media’s campaign against her). If Sarah Palin and a pit bull mated, the offspring would be Jan Brewer.

    If the author is making the assertion that Jan Brewer will beat all six lawsuits (including five of her own cities – isn’t that ironic the city is challenging its state because the state is challenging its nation?), then I invite the author to read the opinions of Constitutional Law experts and brightest legal minds of our fine nation:

    “I think there’s a pretty good chance the S.B. 1070 will be enjoined before it goes into force.” -Prof. Peter Spiro, Temple Law

    “In sum, a “papers please” regime is dangerous whether created by federal law or state law. It may be tolerable if it is almost never enforced. But the best approach is to get rid of it entirely.” Prof. Ilya Somin, George Mason Law, in rebuttal to NRO bloggers.

    “In this case, the fact that Arizona is tracking federal definitions of who is an illegal alien might make things worse for the law’s constitutionality, not better. First, Arizona will not be able to justify the law on the grounds that it has only incidental effects on federal immigration policy; Second, it will be more difficult for Arizona to argue that the scope of its new law is not already occupied by the federal scheme and that the law does not interfere with federal law’s balancing of the relative costs and benefits of adopting particular enforcement policies. There is a much stronger argument [than was available in De Canas] that the new Arizona law, while purporting to be helpful, actually sticks a thumb in the eye of the federal government by engaging in draconian measures.” -Con Law Prof. Jack Balkin, Yale Law

    “It’s unworkable for states to have their own immigration laws, just like states can’t have their own foreign policies.’ He noted that “the federal government is more inclined to consider the national interest.” For that reason, Johnson believes that legal challenges to the law – several have already been filed, and the Obama administration is also considering a lawsuit – are likely to succeed under the federal preemption doctrine.” Dean Kevin Johnson, UC-Davis Law

    “Moreover, Arizona state and local officials who lack training and experience sorting out undocumented immigrants would likely lean even more heavily on such illicit factors. The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion.” -Prof. Michael Dorf, Cornell Law

    ““…the law does not authorize unlawful stops” is only comforting if you ignore the breadth of the category of “lawful stops.” It is perfectly lawful for a police officer to simply approach you on the street or in the grocery store or enter a bus you are riding and, for no apparent reason, engage you in conversation. Once he does, anything you say or do that gives him “reasonable suspicion” that you are an illegal immigrant requires him to force you to show your proverbial “papers.” -Prof. Eduardo Peñalver, Cornell Law

    “The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents.” -Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, UC-Irvine Law

    “My view of the constitutional question is that it is unconstitutional.” -Prof. Hiroshi Motomura, UCLA Law

    “The closer the law comes to the traditional federal role, the more likely it is that the state law will be considered to be trespassing on the federal government’s domain.” -Prof. Juliet Stumpf, Lewis & Clark Law

    “At the end of the day, we will prevail, and will get these things struck down as the constitutional jokes that they are. It is regrettable — but it’s so over the top that it may very well galvanize people.” -Prof. Michael Olivas, U of Houston Law

    • “we in Arizona know our unelected GED governor who is the only governor in the nation without a college degree”

      President Abraham Lincoln didn’t have a College degree. As a matter of FACT, Lincoln’s formal education consisted of about 18 months of schooling; but he was an avid reader and largely self-educated.

      What’s your Next STUPID Elitist remark?

      • My point entirely. Lincoln didn’t see education as “stupid” or “elitist,” which is why he read extensively to educate himself. Try to tell SB1070 supporters any facts (like that crime AND immigration has been down in Arizona before SB 1070) and they refuse to listen and ignore it all. Lincoln did not ignore data that came his way.

        Note that the very political philosophy Lincoln had read, stands against SB 1070. But don’t let that get in the way of your irrational hatred.

        Lincoln based his opinions on the ideas of our founding fathers who wrote the Constitution, he was well-read on the Federalist Papers. Show me one SB1070 supporter who is well-versed in this area.

        And your confusion of the late 1800’s with today is amusing, but perplexing. Few needed to go to college to succeed back then, since we were largely an agrarian society. But that is not the case now, and if nothing else, is evidence of your desire to roll back America to a time when no one needed a college degree. If you don’t evolve with the rest of us in the modern and diverse world, natural selection will weed you out.

  4. Maybe we should allow 20 million chinese, or indian, peasants into the country as they will work for lower wages than current illegal imigrants. I am sure the current illegal imigrants would not object to this. Fact is that we are a nation of laws just enforce them. My father was an imigrant from Mexico he came via the legal route.

    Thank you,

  5. The fact is, all US citizens and legal Residents of US have the opportunity to educate themselves and succeed. The US government help us all with extensive grants and programs to succeed, unlike illegal immigrants.
    Those who blame immigrants from taking jobs and opportunities, are lazy, don’t want to work, abuse the system and lack spirit.

LEAVE A REPLY