Is BP becoming an arm of the federal government? From the Washington Examiner: “The Department of Homeland Security has announced the government will assume control of the joint website between BP and various organizations in charge of providing information about the BP oil spill and recovery.”
1. Phoenix Business Journal: “Illegal immigration cost US $100B, Arizona $2.6B”
2. Investors Business Daily: “The Hollow Case Against Arizona”
“This shows that the race-baiting is really all about winning over the far-left Latino vote, because the federal lawsuit against Arizona doesn’t have any charges at all about civil rights violations.”
3. Denver Post: “Is immigration lawsuit a joke?”
“The federal government sued the state of Arizona this week over its controversial immigration law, arguing that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility. And the laughter from Arizona is still echoing across the land.”
4. Boston Globe: “R.I. troopers embrace firm immigration role”
“In contrast to Mass., they report all who are present illegally. . . . the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.”
5. The Corner: “United States v. Arizona — How ‘Bout United States v. Rhode Island?”
“Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation.”
6. Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: “Hey, Rhode Island Already Checks Immigration Status At Traffic Stops”
7. Washington Post: “Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may follow Arizona’s lead on immigration law”
Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
8. Wall St. Journal: “Arizona and the Imperial Presidency”
“Although much criticism of the law has focused on the danger of “racial profiling,” the Justice Department is not suing on equal-protection grounds, suggesting federal lawyers have concluded there is nothing in the text of the Arizona law that raises such concerns.”
9. Real Clear Polictics: “The Politics of Arizona’s Immigration Law”
10. The Hill: “Graham criticizes Obama suit against Ariz. immigration law”
11. Fox News: “Some Democrats Fear Backlash Over Obama’s Handling of Immigration”
12. Arizona Republic: “Pinal County sheriff’s deputy describes shootout in interview”
13. Arizona Republic: “Mexican drug cartel killings near Nogales increase”
14. Arizona Republic: “Mexico’s drug violence leads schools to teach students to dodge bullets“
MSNBC: “Milo Nordyke, one of the masterminds behind U.S. research into peaceful nuclear energy in the 1960s and ’70s says a nuclear explosion is a logical last-resort solution for BP and the government. Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush and the founder of energy investment-banking firm Simmons & Company International, is another calling for the nuclear option. Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton has voiced support for the idea of an explosion to stem the flow of oil, albeit one using conventional materials rather than nukes.
1. Investors Business Daily: “Tasing Arizona”
“When the Justice Department sued Arizona Tuesday for the grievous crime of protecting its border, it did more than just signal a softer policy on immigration. It also put our national security at risk. ‘A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws,’ the U.S. wrote in its complaint. But Arizona isn’t “interfering” at all. It’s just doing what should be Uncle Sam’s job — protecting our border. Arizona should get a presidential commendation, not a lawsuit. It’s bad enough that bankrupt U.S. states have found their budgets hemorrhaging red ink due to the costs associated with runaway illegal immigration, as a number of recent reports show.”
2. Wall St. Journal: “Suing Arizona – How not to forge an immigration reform consensus”
“the Administration has gone out of its way to pander to liberal activists and other critics of the measure and inflame the already emotional issue. . . . Notably, the feds aren’t suing Arizona on equal protection grounds, despite Mr. Obama’s repeated public and polarizing claims that the law could lead to racial profiling. This, too, betrays the political cynicism behind his public denunciations.”
3. SurveyUSA: Poll shows 62% of San Diego, Californians oppose US suing Arizona over its immigration law.
4. Boston Herald: “Bad posture on amnesty – Funny how feds lean on Ariz., not R.I”
“Arizonans seem to take the rule of law seriously. And this is a big problem for Team Obama. Holder is worried that trained and knowledgeable local cops will actually prove that the law is enforceable, blowing his boss’s cover.”
5. Bloomberg: “U.S. Sues to Block Arizona Immigration Law”
6. Breitbart: “US Senators assail lawsuit against Arizona immigration law”
7. Breitbart: “Protests of Arizona governor planned in Boston”
8. Hot Line on Call: “Arizona Dems Oppose Immigration Lawsuit”
9. Breitbart: “Feds sue to block Arizona illegal immigrant law”
10. Arizona Republic: “Feds’ suit raises stakes for Arizona’s immigration law”
11. Arizona Republic: “Implications loom large for Obama”
12. Arizona Republic: “What’s involved in suit vs. Arizona’s immigration law”
13. Arizona Republic: “Secure border can provide big dividends”
14. USA Today: “Opposing view on immigration: Act now to prevent profiling” – Opps! Apparently this story was written by a woman who didn’t read the US Complaint because it does not mention racial profiling.
Read the 25 page Complaint in the matter of The United States of America vs. The State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in Her Official Capacity. The Complaint states three causes of action:
It’s interesting to note that despite opponents constant statements that SB 1070 should be overturned because it will cause racial profiling, the Complaint is silent on racial profiling. The US also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof.
Here is the Justice Department’s press release dated July 6, 2010, about the lawsuit.
CITING CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHALLENGES ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW
WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice challenged the state of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law, S.B. 1070, in federal court today. In a brief filed in the District of Arizona, the Department said S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy,explaining that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork
of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.” A patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement. Having enacted its own immigration policy that conflicts with federal immigration law, Arizona “crossed a constitutional line.”
The Department’s brief said that S.B. 1070 will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as aliens implicated in terrorism, drug smuggling, and gang activity, and those with criminal records. The law’s mandates on Arizona law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status.
In declarations filed with the brief, Arizona law enforcement officials, including the Chiefs of Police of Phoenix and Tucson, said that S.B. 1070 will hamper their ability to effectively police their communities. The chiefs said that victims of or witnesses to crimes would be less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement officials and that implementation of the law would require them to reassign officers from critical areas such as violent crimes, property crimes, and home invasions.
The Department filed the suit after extensive consultation with Arizona officials, law enforcement officers and groups, and civil rights advocates. The suit was filed on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State, which share responsibilities in administering federal immigration law.
“Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns,” Attorney General Holder said. “But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”
“With the strong support of state and local law enforcement, I vetoed several similar pieces of legislation as Governor of Arizona because they would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. “We are actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of which this is one. While this bipartisan effort to reform our immigration system progresses, the Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce the laws on the books by enhancing border security and removing criminal aliens from this country.”
The Department has requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law, arguing that the law’s operation will cause irreparable harm.
“Arizona impermissibly seeks to regulate immigration by creating an Arizona-specific immigration policy that is expressly designed to rival or supplant that of the federal government. As such, Arizona’s immigration policy exceeds a state’s role with respect to aliens, interferes with the federal government’s balanced administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives. S.B. 1070 does not simply seek to provide legitimate support to the federal government’s immigration policy, but instead creates an unprecedented independent immigration scheme that exceeds constitutional boundaries,” the Department said in its brief.