Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

How do you feel about Arizona's immigration idea''''s?

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne will announce Monday what legal steps, if any, they're prepared to take following an injunction of the state's controversial immigration law, which is opposed by the Obama administration.

Among other things, the legislation would have required local law enforcement in Arizona to apprehend and help deport illegal immigrants. The Justice Department sued, arguing that only the federal government has that authority.

Last month, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the U.S. Justice Department and against Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB 1070 into law last year.

Brewer's legal team could ask the full 9th Circuit to revisit the issue, take the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, or choose to do nothing at all, said Matthew Benson, Brewer's spokesman.

Brewer and Horne have scheduled an 11 a.m. (2 p.m. EDT) news conference on the matter.

The Justice Department lawsuit led to the original court decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton last July, temporarily blocking the law's most contested parts just a day before they were scheduled to go into effect. That included the requirement that local police officers should check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The appeals court ruling last month upheld Bolton's ruling.

Brewer said at the time that the decision harms the "safety and well-being of Arizonans."

"For decades, the federal government has neglected its constitutional duty to American citizens by failing to secure the border," she said. "States like Arizona have borne the brunt of that failure."

The legislation has a variety of supporters and detractors.

Republican lawmakers, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other state governments were among those filing briefs with the appeals court supporting Arizona's argument. The Mexican government, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the city of Tucson, Arizona, were among those filing briefs supporting the Justice Department's side.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department challenged only six of the Arizona law's provisions, meaning others went into effect in July.

That includes a ban on "sanctuary cities," or municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants. Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. In addition, the ruling allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The decision in April sided with the U.S. Justice Department, largely on the argument that federal immigration policy would be greatly undermined -- as might America's standing in the world -- if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws. Doing so, the ruling contends, essentially means a given state is adopting its own foreign policy, one that may be in opposition to national policy.

"That 50 individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained. In matters affecting the intercourse of the federal nation with other nations, the federal nation must speak with one voice," the ruling says.

In February, Brewer announced that Arizona had filed a countersuit against the federal government, seeking the authority to implement its own border security efforts.

At that time, Homeland Security Department spokesman Matt Chandler called Arizona's court claim a "meritless" one that "does nothing to secure the border."


Asked by amazinggrace83 at 3:08 PM on May. 9, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 31 (50,242 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (24)
  • I support state's rights. I do not live there and since our federal government is not fulfilling it's obligation to protect our borders, it's up to the states to do their job for them.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 3:11 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • I think Arizona is doing a better job upholding our federal laws than our federal government! Illegal immigrants are exactly that... ILLEGAL!!! They should be THROWN back over the boarder like the thieves they are! No, I'm not saying they're coming here robbing people forcefully, but they ARE taking food out of our mouths, and money out of pockets, because we end up supporting them!!!

    Answer by CeeCee333 at 3:19 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • Good Lord, quit with the grammar police. We can post your typos and inconsistencies all day long if you want to go there.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 3:33 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • Arizona's gotta do what Arizona's gotta do.

    Answer by Nanixh at 3:21 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • Agree with QuinnMae ~ and would add that it's beyond shameful that our federal gov't. refuses to do it's job AND attempts to prevent states from taking care of themselves (to the point of suing them!). If the federal gov't. flat out ignores laws, or can make them up as they go along, I personally don't feel that any state should 1) be bound by such laws or, 2) allow any feds in to do squat.

    Illegals are a drain and a drag on the US economy, on our society, and on our resources. Just because a very few big corporations make money from them and support/buy out congresscritters is NO reason that the rest of us have to put up with it. The same goes with accepting being called a bigot because you expect the law to be enforced. US citizens HAVE to follow the law. Illegals don't, and many of them skate on things that cost the rest of us money (like ins., school taxes, etc.). Kudos to AR!

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 3:28 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • Since the Fed's are doing basically nothing, I support Arizona's attempts to bring the situation under control in their state. As for the Mexican Gov....of course they don't want rulings like that to go into effect. Those here illegally become our problem, not theirs and the ones that find work send money back home which helps the economy in whatever Mexican town they are from. I'm sure Mexico's Gov. would be very happy if we just did away with the border all together.

    Answer by meriana at 3:25 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • Don't give her a second thought, OP. When someone pulls the grammar / spelling card they are just showing they have nothing else to complain about.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 3:34 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • This is one of the most honest policies I have seen in a while

    Answer by pinkdragon36 at 3:39 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • I support them 100%. If I didn't reside in the great state of Texas, I'd move to Arizona,but I don't imagine we will be that far behind them!

    Answer by cbk_mom3 at 3:51 PM on May. 9, 2011

  • I fully support the rights of the individual states. If the federal government won't take care of the problem the state and local governments have no choice but to do so. I cannot see how a law for the state and in effect within the state's borders can be seen as overstepping the boundaries. The law would not have been needed if Homeland Security was doing the job it is well paid to do.


    Answer by yourspecialkid at 5:29 PM on May. 9, 2011