Hillary Clinton drops immigration bombshell: Feds will sue Arizona

Drafted, but yet to be filed!
impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders will be difficult to prove (if/when filed) as the AZ law has nothing to do with policing the border.
At the same time, the government officials said, the department's civil rights section is considering possible legal action against the law on the basis that it amounts to racial profiling of Latinos who are legally in Arizona but conceivably could be asked to provide documents proving their citizenship. Notice the words *considering possible legal action* on the rcial profiling. [If] they do use, then a revamping of the Federal Immigration Laws will be necessary first.

Redress:
Your cases as best I could see did not address that issue.

Click to expand...

What issue are you speaking of specifically?

P.S. Thanks for the article....

Redress said:

The administration has made it clear it plans to challenge the law for some time.

Click to expand...

Think it boils down to the fact that Arizona is calling the federal government to just enforce the ****ing laws that currently exist. Should be fascinating to see how the courts respond. And then see how the feds respond on actually enforcing the present laws.

Give kudos to Arizona for forcing the issue.....



.

bhkad said:

Hillary Clinton drops immigration bombshell: Feds will sue Arizona



Hillary Clinton drops immigration bombshell: Feds will sue Arizona | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Why sue Arizona when most Americans and most Arizonans support this law?

Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is the first person to serve as both Sec State and Atty Gen. Holder better step aside before she puts his testicles in her lockbox.

Redress said:

So you list a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with the grounds that the Arizona law is going to be challenged under. This is supposed to prove something?

Click to expand...

The supreme court has ruled fed INS agents CAN profile illegals based on appearance. The Arizona law speicifically forbids their state law enforcement from profiling. The federal government created programs that TRAINED state law enforcement to enforce INS laws. Other than the potential for profiling the ONLY differencebetween the Arizona state law and the federal law is that Arizona actually plans to ENFORCE the law. Im STILL waiting for ANYONE to give a legitimate reason for opposing the Arizona law. It doesnt CREATE anything new. It reinforces federal law.

Arizona and every state ought to file a countersuit against the federal government for every dollar it costs their state to deal with a problem the Fed has created.

This might turn around to bite the government in the ass.

If they lose their suit - and Arizona can maintain their law as is (which I think is the likely outcome, it's in strict adherence TO the federal law) then the fed government will be forced to permit all other states to go along with Arizona's lead AND the fed government will thus be forced to concede that, yes, there is a problem - and likely put in a position where they have to act whether they like it or not.

Aunt Spiker said:

This might turn around to bite the government in the ass.

If they lose their suit - and Arizona can maintain their law as is (which I think is the likely outcome, it's in strict adherence TO the federal law) then the fed government will be forced to permit all other states to go along with Arizona's lead AND the fed government will thus be forced to concede that, yes, there is a problem - and likely put in a position where they have to act whether they like it or not.

Click to expand...

I have to be honest...I think Hillary intentionally just wrote a check that Obama cant cash. Either what she did was unintentional and VERY wreckless and irresponsible...OR...calculated.

VanceMack said:

I have to be honest...I think Hillary intentionally just wrote a check that Obama cant cash. Either what she did was unintentional and VERY wreckless and irresponsible...OR...calculated.

Click to expand...

Or she was just saying something that was already well known and reported on. Considering I linked to a news story from well before this story, about the planning for the lawsuit, that would be the case in fact that this was not some bombshell.

Redress said:

Or she was just saying something that was already well known and reported on. Considering I linked to a news story from well before this story, about the planning for the lawsuit, that would be the case in fact that this was not some bombshell.

Click to expand...

Now wait a second...you are the same person hammering McChrystal for going to the media...SURELY you get the concept of keeping problems in-house. So now you endorse a sitting Secretary of State taking our dirty laundry to foreign countries? Its one thing for an adminsitration to consider legal challenges...its quite another thing to say the Federal government is going to sue a state.

And again...based on WHAT???? What is it exactly the state is doing that the fed is upset about?

Look...I'll cut through all the BULL****...I'll just say it for you. The democrats want NO ENFORCMENT of immigration laws. The WANT the illegals here...the want people dependent on government. they WANT future voters. THAT is their objection to Arizona deciding to actually enforce FEDERAL LAW.

The notion...we are going to SUE a STATE because they DARE to actually ENFORCE OUR LAWS...holy ****...seriously???