The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has joined with attorneys general from eight other states in a legal brief supporting Arizona's hotly disputed new immigration law.
The statute, signed into law in April, is considered the toughest in the nation. It directs police enforcing other laws to ask about a suspect's immigration status if there is reason to believe the person is in this country illegally. Other provisions of the law make failure to carry immigration documents a crime and empower individuals to sue government agencies over questions of immigration law enforcement.
Other provisions of the law make failure to carry immigration documents a crime and empower individuals to sue government agencies over questions of immigration law enforcement.
Attorneys for the Obama administration have filed suit seeking to block enforcement of the measure on the grounds that federal law preempts it.
Because Arizona's law maintains the "joint federal-state cooperative immigration enforcement program" established by Congress, Cuccinelli said in a statement Wednesday, he is "stunned that the government has sued."
This isn't first time Cuccinelli has been at legal odds with the federal government. He also has clashed with the government over health care policy and greenhouse gas rules.
Other state prosecutors who joined the brief include those from Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. All are Republicans.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
If stopped for infraction, then ask status
Pilot interprets law to mean "It directs police enforcing other laws to ask about a suspect's immigration status if there is reason to believe the person is in this country illegally." This inaccurate interpretation fuels the misconception that there is inherently a discrimination based on ethnicity, when in fact the "discernment' is based on illegal behavior FIRST, ask identification questions second. Pilot, let's stick with the facts.
As far as Republicans are concerned, the republicans don't have a track record of pandering to illegals--granting amnesty in order to convert illegals into democratic voters. Republicans stand on principal not pandering.
Sanctuary states like Illinois are going bankrupt
Virginia needs to enforce immigration laws.
Sanctuary states are going bankrupt--read about the immigration politics--entitlements for votes,
www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-political-commentary/2010/05/illinois-all-kids-health-care-program-enrollment-is-75-illegal-aliens.html
Sanctuary states like Illinois are going bankrupt
Virginia needs to enforce immigration laws.
Sanctuary states are going bankrupt--read about the immigration politics--entitlements for votes,
www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-political-commentary/2010/05/illinois-all-kids-health-care-program-enrollment-is-75-illegal-aliens.html
LIBERAL PRESS - AGAIN
Did anybody else notice the very last line of this article? "All are Republicans".
I don't recall the Virginian Pilot stating "All are Democrats" when gushing over Obama's staff and followers who want to enact this or clarify that. Talk about the liberal press!!
I'm very proud that the good state of Virginia finally has an Attorney General with "a set", with strong convictions, who isn't afraid to go up against Washington.
This (cough-cough) so-called leadership (gasp-gasp) is a joke and their inability to make good decisions BASED ON WHAT THE POPULACE WANTS is just one example of why "they gotta GO!!"
well they are
All Republicans. What's your point?
Gertz --
I think the point the Pilot is trying to make is that the Republican leadership of all of these states is paying much closer attention to this issue than the Democratic leadership of other states, and is willing to voice their support for individual states being able to protect themselves, and enforce federal laws, when the feds are either too afraid, or too lazy to do it themselves.
I'm really surprised that no Democrat-led states have joined this action. What a great way to show your constituents that you really care more about them and their future than the illegals flooding the country.
Virginia AG backs AZ Immigration Law
Suggest that commenters read Article I § 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Article II § 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the affidavits in support of the Justice Department's brief from top officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, the Tucson Chief of Police, the Phoenix Chief of Police, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff, and the actual Justice Department brief before rendering judgement about the merits of the case. Please.You might even learn something...
What the brief tries to hide -
The premise is that states cannot make state laws that are already covered by federal law. That premise fails in practice UNLESS the federal government is willing to repay the fines levied by states for STATE occupational safety violations since states either have more restrictive or mirrored STATE laws of federal laws; or environmental violations since states either have more restrictive or mirrored STATE laws of federal laws.
How about the federal government repay all the pay those workers in state that have pay above federal minimum wage laws.
The premise fails because states are allowed to make state laws that mirror or are more restrictive of federal laws.
Over a century of Supreme
Over a century of Supreme Court precedent regarding state attempts at immigration laws. Safety, environmental laws, etc are not applicable in this comparison, as those are not powers explicitly given to the federal government, like immigration/naturalization is. Those come from the commerce clause, which allows for more legal vaguery.
I recommend you read up on at least one case - Gonzales v City of Peoria, as it more or less mirrors this whole debate. Executive summary: SC struck down local immigration law as unconstitutional.
called your bet and raised
When you are wrong, you are wrong.
Gonzales v. City of Peoria (by the way it was Peoria, Arizona if that is not ironic) was heard by the 9th circuit court back in 1983. The case had an et al as the plantiffs but most were illegal immigrants and the court rejected their claim. The case was about if LOCAL police were allowed to enforce federal immigration laws. The 9th circuit said the LOCAL police were allowed.
Now flash forward to the USSC concerning Gonzales v. City of Peoria (still have to laugh at the fact it was Peoria, ARIZONA). Gonzales is mentioned as a footnote in INS v. Menendez concerning what the 9th circuit court had said.
All it took was intellectual curiosity and trust but verify that Gonzales v. City of Peoria was NOT about LOCAL immigration laws.