DOJ won't sue sanctuary cities

[applecorped]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."




Hmmmm.

 

[Neally]

Tell me again how the AZ law actively interferes with federal immigration policy, except the part that turning over more illegals makes the federal agencies actually do what they are supposed to do.

 

[Kopji]

I myself am a little curious why people think that it is easier for illegals to return to Mexico across a heavily guarded border, or via a vastly broken federal and state system...

...rather than just pick up and move to Texas or California.

 

[dtugg]

I myself am a little curious why people think that it is easier for illegals to return to Mexico across a heavily guarded border, or via a vastly broken federal and state system...

Nobody cares about people going south.

...rather than just pick up and move to Texas or California.

I am sure people in Arizona would be fine with that.

 

[Dancing David]

Tell me again how the AZ law actively interferes with federal immigration policy, except the part that turning over more illegals makes the federal agencies actually do what they are supposed to do.

I am not sure it does, I think some of the objections are to the arbitrary nature of the process. If the law is applied to all people in contact with the AZ police then there is no case. But if it can be shown that it is applied in an arbitrary fashion subject to 'prejudice' then there is a COTUS issue. So I think the solution would be for AZ to rewrite it such that all people who come in contact with law enforcement must show proof of citizenship.

It will be an interesting 'probable cause' case when it gets to the SCOTUS

 

[Dancing David]

I suppose the question is which parts of federal statute and what funding streams are tied to them in the case of 'sanctuary' cities.

If the cities do not onstrcut and cooperate with federal marshalls and federal warrants, that would be the biggest deal.

Now if the sanctuary cities actively lie about data and deny legal requests for information that would be an issue.

I am not sure of the nature of the 'sanctuary', it may mainly be an 'honorary' thing the the 'keys to the city'.

Now I have to say, I am not sure about cases where felonies are not reported as they should be. But it seems to me that this sort of thing happens in many differentw ays with all sorts of individuals, where a law enforcement official 'bends the rules' or 'makes a choice' that benefits a suspect and violates statute.

Not that that is good thing.

 

[Beerina]

"We're not gonna sue sanctuary cities because they are leftist hotbeds of support. We will sue Arizona because it is right-wing, and thus not supportive of us."



Like I've been saying for awhile to people on the left: State your positions, loud and proud, as the election approaches. Don't be shy! Open that yapper!

 

[Kopji]

Nobody cares about people going south.

Probably a good point, but getting 'back' is also difficult. It costs a lot of money that they don't have. Returning illegal immigrants would probably depend on federal or state programs to get them back.

I am sure people in Arizona would be fine with that.

I would have included Utah till a couple days ago.

Actually, I'd say Beerina was more right than wrong on this one. I get whiplash with our local politicians trying to kiss whoever's butt is in power at the moment - just to get funding for something.

We had this horrific jerk congressman Renzi just because he could get money for the area. As soon as Bush was gone so was he.

 

[marplots]

The feds get to sue the States, the States get to sue the cities if they want.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not terribly familiar with this.

Does the DOJ often sue "sanctuary cities"? To what effect?

 

[BeAChooser]

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.

I suspect this is so going to blow up in the DOJ's face. Could it be that their only purpose in filing this is to make it look like they are doing something for the democrat Hispanic base as the November elections approach? Could they be that desperate, looking at current polling numbers?

 

[MikeMangum]

I'm not terribly familiar with this.

Does the DOJ often sue "sanctuary cities"? To what effect?

The issue didn't come up until the DOJ started a suit against Arizona. The point is that the DOJ will not sue those municipalities that actively interfere with the prosecution of Federal law, but will sue a state for forwarding illegal aliens to the Feds for prosecution, with the stated reasoning that the Arizona law is an interference in Federal law enforcement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."




Hmmmm.

My understanding is that the federal lawsuit against Arizona is based on the argument that the Arizona law establishes an immigration policy that undermines and conflicts with the federal policy (and the federal law is supreme).

Apparently, the federal government does not think that sanctuary laws conflict with their uniform national policy.

From what I read, the federal government says that the Arizona law emphasizes "attrition" [ETA: though I'm not sure I understand what they mean by that term] whereas the federal law focuses on illegals who have a prior felony conviction and/or have already been deported. Their enforcement efforts have been targeting gang, drug and other violent crimes.

While reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not this is the best policy, critics of the federal government's policy simply deny that there is a policy or that the federal government is making any efforts at enforcement (even though federal enforcement as measured in arrests, deportations and the like is at record levels).

ETA: I don't know the specifics of any of the sanctuary laws, but if they shielded felons from federal authorities, I think the federal government would sue. I don't think the federal government's policy puts emphasis on otherwise law-abiding illegals.

 

[joobz]

otherwise law-abiding illegals.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it?

Illegals are, by definition, not law-abiding. After all, they cannot get legal work. They are not hear legally. Now, I know your point is that the majority of the illegals are not involved in active criminal activity (e.g., gangs, drugs, robbery, assault...) But, I think language of "law-abiding" will likely draw conversations down needless paths.

Truth is, there are degrees of illegality. People in AZ and anti-immigration groups are of the zero tolerance ilk. However, when you are dealing with 10-20 million people, that's no small number. prioritization must occur (unless, people really want our government to spend excesses of money to eliminate people contributing to our economy).


I see a lot of parallels between this and the prohibition era.
1.)an immutable driving force (alcohol vs. better economic prospects)
2.)creation of a criminal class who are not really criminals (social drinkers vs. illegal immigrant families)
3.)generation of grey market allowing criminal elements to profit and run wild (mafia gangsters vs. mexican gangs)
4.)People in group 3 using people in group 2 as a buffer shield to run around the law.


The AZ laws seem to be akin to having Illinois round up every drinker it finds and ships them to the feds. That would severely tax their ability to go after Capone. (no pun intended).

 

[pipelineaudio]

The Arizona law has absolutely nothing to do with anti-immigration groups, or even immigration. It has to do with criminal invaders. I wish people would stop throwing these red herrings in

 

[joobz]

The Arizona law has absolutely nothing to do with anti-immigration groups, or even immigration. It has to do with criminal invaders. I wish people would stop throwing these red herrings in

what's a criminal invader?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, that's the rub, isn't it?

Illegals are, by definition, not law-abiding.

But the vast majority of them do not commit violent crimes or crimes other than being here illegally.

I'm personally in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform that would address the issue of our need for labor (currently provided in large part by illegals).

They are not hear [sic] legally. Now, I know your point is that the majority of the illegals are not involved in active criminal activity (e.g., gangs, drugs, robbery, assault...) But, I think language of "law-abiding" will likely draw conversations down needless paths.

No, I think it's exactly where the conversation should go. I did say "otherwise law abiding" and I did mention that the federal policy is about cracking down on violent felons. To me that policy makes sense. If you have limited enforcement resources (and note well that many people critical of the federal government's enforcement are the same people--Tea Baggers for example--who are against big government and deficit spending), it makes sense to focus on getting rid of illegals who commit violent crimes rather than those whose only crime is being here illegally.

Truth is, there are degrees of illegality. People in AZ and anti-immigration groups are of the zero tolerance ilk. However, when you are dealing with 10-20 million people, that's no small number. prioritization must occur (unless, people really want our government to spend excesses of money to eliminate people contributing to our economy).

Exactly.

The U.S. Constitution, however, spells out very clearly whose approach is supreme. The U.S. Congress is given the task of establishing a uniform national naturalization policy (and there's plenty of case law to show that the naturalization authority includes enforcement and dealing with aliens of all kinds).

Again, the lawsuit filed by the federal government argues that the Arizona law establishes a policy that is in conflict with and undermines the federal policy. Apparently, the sanctuary laws do not conflict with federal policy.

The AZ laws seem to be akin to having Illinois round up every drinker it finds and ships them to the feds. That would severely tax their ability to go after Capone. (no pun intended).

I would agree with this analogy if the Constitution specifically granted the federal government the authority to establish a uniform national policy to deal with drinking (but there isn't [ETA: and wasn't even during Prohibition]). Then, if Illinois passed a law reflecting their conflicting policy, the federal government would have a good case based on preemption.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Arizona law has absolutely nothing to do with anti-immigration groups, or even immigration. It has to do with criminal invaders. I wish people would stop throwing these red herrings in

An immigrant is someone who migrates somewhere. So both illegal aliens and legal aliens are immigrants. The Arizona law does indeed have to do with immigration. It even makes it a state misdemeanor to be in Arizona illegally.

The law says absolutely nothing about invaders. A foreign invasion would be an act of war. You're playing fast and loose with the language.

 

[Ausmerican]

"We're not gonna sue sanctuary cities because they are leftist hotbeds of support. We will sue Arizona because it is right-wing, and thus not supportive of us."



Like I've been saying for awhile to people on the left: State your positions, loud and proud, as the election approaches. Don't be shy! Open that yapper!

Arizona is less right wing than you might think. A lot of the people you meet here moved here from colder blue states for the climate and if AZ was as right wing as you seem to think the local hero McCain would've won the state by a much wider margin in 2008. It is not like the Governor that is making all these headlines was actually elected.

The Arizona law has absolutely nothing to do with anti-immigration groups, or even immigration. It has to do with criminal invaders. I wish people would stop throwing these red herrings in

Right, cos "criminal invaders" is sooo much more accurate.

You know this law could've passed with a lot less trouble if Brewer and others here didn't decide to make a new ridiculous statement every week. Most illegals are drug mules, headless corpses in the desert all the time, illegals kill 80% of LEOs killed in the line of duty, etc.

I am still against the law for the reason I have stated from the outset. It is going to cost AZ a bucketload of money that we dont have.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

prioritization must occur (unless, people really want our government to spend excesses of money to eliminate people contributing to our economy).

Just wanted to emphasis this very good point.

Federal policy, apparently, is not to waste resources going after illegal aliens who aren't committing other crimes (and who often contribute to our economy). Instead, it has been racking up record numbers of enforcement acts (arrests, deportations and so on) of illegals committing felonies, involved with gang crimes, etc.

The issue didn't come up until the DOJ started a suit against Arizona. The point is that the DOJ will not sue those municipalities that actively interfere with the prosecution of Federal law, but will sue a state for forwarding illegal aliens to the Feds for prosecution, with the stated reasoning that the Arizona law is an interference in Federal law enforcement.

Not quite right. The Federal suit says that the Arizona law is at odds with their national policy on enforcement of immigration laws.

See above (this post). The federal government would rather not bog down its people with millions upon millions of cases dealing with illegal aliens who don't cause problems (other than being here illegally) at the cost of not being able to go after those illegals who are committing violent crimes.

There are two conflicting approaches to the enforcement of immigration laws. The U.S. Constitution tells us which one is supreme.

Again, reasonable minds could disagree on which approach is better.

As Joobz observes, maybe there are some people who don't mind massive deficit spending in order to round up millions of illegal aliens who contribute to our economy and don't commit other crimes. Unfortunately, that's not the way they usually argue it. They usually make the false claim that the federal government isn't enforcing its immigration laws.

I share the discomfort many of my opponents on this matter feel about having laws that are casually broken and it seems that law enforcement largely looks the other way. (Noise ordinances, speed limits, and so on.) I think the solution is to change the laws around to make them realistically enforceable. (If everyone--including the police in non-emergency situations!-- drives 10 mph over the limit on a given stretch of road, it makes more sense to change the speed limit. If we practically have to have millions of Mexicans to provide labor for certain industries, why not set up a guest worker program that is workable and accommodates this need?)