Five Arizona cities want a panel of federal judges to uphold the injunction against key parts of the state's new immigration law, saying to do otherwise would endanger public safety.
In legal briefs filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin said his community already is struggling to maintain law enforcement in the face of budget problems. The resulting layoffs and mandatory furlough days have forced the police department to prioritize which incidents to investigate.
He said if the injunction is overturned it "will mandate new duties and new priorities which will significantly reduce the resources available for those public safety issues the city has identified as priorities, including homicides, home invasions, armed robberies, sexual assaults and other serious threats to the community.''
David Abney, who filed arguments for Flagstaff, San Luis, Tolleson and Somerton, raised similar issues, citing concerns raised by local police chiefs.
"SB 1070 ... requires me to divert department resources away from serious crimes not only to conduct immigration-status inquiries but to arrest persons who pose no threat to public safety,'' wrote San Luis Police Chief Rick Flores.
But the effort by the cities to keep key provision of the law off the books are running headlong into contrary arguments by Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever. He wants the appellate court to rule that U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton was wrong when she put several key provisions of the law on hold.
Dever said the federal government should be looking for a solution to illegal immigration and the resulting crime in his county. Instead, he said, the Department of Justice decided to sue Arizona when it enacted laws to deal with the problem.
"The Obama administration's approach has sent a clear message to Sheriff Dever and the people of Arizona -- we're not going to protect you and do not try to protect yourself,'' wrote Brian Bergin, Dever's attorney. "This is unacceptable and intolerable.''
The briefs come as the appellate court is set to hear arguments next month over whether Bolton applied the correct legal standards in issuing the injunction. But inherent in that is the underlying questions of whether the Legislature had the power to enact SB 1070 in the first place.
That law is designed to give new powers to state and local police to detain and arrest suspected illegal immigrants.
But Bolton, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Obama administration, said it appears that key provisions illegally intrude into the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate immigration. She also said there was evidence that allowing these sections to be enforced would cause hardships, and not only on those improperly detained.
One provision she sidelined requires police to check the legal status of those they have stopped if there is "reasonable suspicion'' they are in the country illegally. Bolton said that is likely to burden Immigration and Customs Enforcement which is legally required to respond to every request, which "will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities.''
For Tucson, Rankin said the mandate means police would need to set aside all other priorities "to fully investigate every potential case involving an unlawful alien, regardless of how minor the initial contact with the police or code enforcement officers may have been.''
A potentially bigger problem for the cities is the requirement that police check the immigration status of everyone who has been arrested before release. Bolton also placed that provision on hold, noting it covers anyone charged with a crime, even if that person is not jailed.
Rankin said that in 2009 city police used this cite-and-release practice 36,821 times. He said if Bolton's injunction is reversed, the additional work will consume 36,000 staff hours -- the equivalent of 18 full-time officers -- with first-day incarceration costs running the city more than $200 a person.
Dever, however, called Bolton's interpretation of the arrest provision "unreasonable,'' arguing that requirement applies only when the person is first suspected of being an illegal immigrant, not to everyone who is arrested on any charge whatsoever.
Beyond that, Dever said the injunction ignores the problems created by poor federal enforcement of immigration laws and the harms they cause.
"Hordes of men, women and children have been kidnapped, trafficked, tortured, and even murdered as drug runners battle over territory in Southern Arizona,'' the sheriff said through his attorney. "Every rancher victimized, every drug-related kidnapping, every home invasion, every "safe house'' discovered, and every stranded, dying victim of human smuggling rescued, testifies to the consequences of the government's inexcusable neglect.''
The legal fight comes as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed more than 392,000 illegal immigrants nationwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 20, more than half of whom were convicted criminals. She said that is a marked increase, especially in removals of criminal aliens, from the last year of the Bush administration.
The Phnxman posted at 6:41 pm on Wed, Oct 6, 2010.
It is simply unbelievable...almost. I can understand the cities of Tucson, San Luis and Somerton: cities almost abutting the border with Mexico, and owing their allegiance to the hispanic voters who are the majority there. But Flagstaff and Tolleson??? Well...even Tolleson might have a hispanic majority: but makes me wonder if the politicos there have EVER initiated any polling regarding the matter on illegal immigration, or have just allowed themselves to be led by a "vocal" minority. I have found that a goodly portion of LEGAL hispanics support SB1070! Which leaves us with...FLAGSTAFF????
borderraven posted at 5:39 am on Thu, Oct 7, 2010.
While the federal government may have original jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration laws, and declare war, the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration laws. Under laws enacted by Congress, states have concurrent jurisdiction and are requested and encouraged to assist the enforcement of federal immigration laws. US States are encouraged to engage in war, if invaded.
See: Article 1 Section 10, Clause 3 and Article 4 Section 4.
Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution says, [PARAPHRASED]
"every state in the union, shall, without the Consent of Congress, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, or engage in War, when actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Article II, section 3, of the US Constitution says, [PARAPHRASED] "The President, shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution says, [PARAPHRASED] "every state in the union, is responsible to every state in the union, for securing our union against invasion."
The 10th Amendment of the Constitution, says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The 11th Amendment, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
PatriotAlways posted at 9:01 am on Thu, Oct 7, 2010.
One more example of why we are having a problem with illegal immigration. If you have sanctuaries they will come.
Does the word illegal have no meaning for these people. What on earth gives them the idea they can cubbyhole this problem and it will be okay?
The reason we have the human smuggling, the drop houses, the dead bodies in the desert, the murders on the border, the raping of trafficed women, the kidnapping, is simply because the people behind this know the likelyhood of being questioned or caught is very low, because of the lax attitude about illegals by too many cities and too many police agencies.
They have committed a crime crossing the border without a visa or other papers. Go the other way and I will see you a couple of years if you are lucky enough to survive you time in a Mexican prison.
Also the noise tends to focus on the people of Mexico, look at the numbers of other nationals from other countries using the southern border to cross and do who knows what! I find it hard to believe some many can be so stupid about such a serious threat to our country.
How many armed lookouts do you think we have in Mexico, 70, 80, 90 miles from the border? How many signs are there south of our border, warning people to be on the lookout for armed drug smugglers and trafficers?
Do the ordinary citizens need to be heavily armed to walk in our own areas of the state just to ensure not being killed by increasingly violent drug cartel people?
If you think I am wrong then make sure you leave your own home's doors open, and when some one comes in don't worry they are just there to make themselves at home. You should not mind at all if they offer to do a few choirs around the house or offer a little rent money!
That is the thought process the Feds want us to accept! How do you like the idea?
Poorman posted at 10:42 am on Thu, Oct 7, 2010.
As just being a little guy,i can't do much but i will make sure me and my friends won't be spending any of our money in these towns,citys etc.
American Pride posted at 2:11 am on Fri, Oct 8, 2010.
I'm one of those Hispanics who is 100% in support of SB1070 and I think we should all feel free to let the cities of Tucson, Flagstaff, Tolleson, San Luis and Somerton know what we think about them trying to get the injunction on SB1070 upheld. The contact info for mayors and council members of these cities is on these links...
http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/mcc
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/
http://www.tollesonaz.org/
http://www.cityofsanluis.org/
http://www.cityofsomerton.com/mayorandcouncil.html
[wink]
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:42 am on Fri, Oct 8, 2010.
"but to arrest persons who pose no threat to public safety,"
Google "Chandler Rapist". Tell that to all the young CHILDREN that an ILLEGAL ALIEN RAPED!!!!
By the way, it was at least his 2nd trip into the USA ILLEGALLY!!!!
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:44 am on Fri, Oct 8, 2010.
American Pride- Thank you for your support. You aren't the only Hispanic person I know that supports SB 1070....
AZ_Resident posted at 6:57 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Hey, here's a novel idea, instead of handing out money to continue unemployment, put people to work in law enforcement, and administrative positions to help and aid the illegal deportation situation. Instead of everyone complaining they are stretched thin, or understaffed moving money into funds for the states security would certainly be justifiable instead of using federal funds to sue the states that want to secure themselves.