Department of Justice Challenges Arizona Immigration Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2010
(202) 514-2007

file://www.justice.gov/

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.

President Obama's Moment to Reassert Federal Leadership on Immigration Reform

June 30, 2010

Washington, D.C. -Tomorrow, Thursday, July 1st, President Obama will make what is being described by the New York Times as "a major speech on immigration" at American University in Washington, D.C. The President is expected to step forward to reassert the leadership of the Federal Government on the issue of immigration.

While a federal lawsuit against Arizona's SB1070 now seems imminent, the President must address the underlying issues that led to passage of the Arizona law. We hope the President will squarely address the public's frustration with a lack of workable solutions on immigration. He must place this frustration in context - lack of federal action leads to growing impetus in the states to pass laws, no matter what their cost, simply to try to resolve the impasse. The President should address this frustration, but should also address the undisputed polling that shows that Americans want comprehensive immigration reform. This can be his moment to bring people together by laying out a framework that will actually move Congress to complete workable legislation.

We also hope that the President avoids some of the typical election chatter on immigration, which tends to turn the issue into a political contest of who can talk the toughest. Rarely does the debate move beyond the issue of further fortifying our southern border. While border security is a necessary component of comprehensive immigration reform, we cannot stop there. Real reform must look past campaign politics and find solutions that will allow communities to live and work together without the anger and recriminations that have dominated this issue for years. We hope the President's speech will go beyond issues of border security and discuss with the same enthusiasm strategies to create a 21st century immigration system - a system which invests in ideas and programs that support family and community cohesion, promotes fairness and individual accountability, supports immigrant integration, and helps us attract the best and brightest from around the world.

"The crisis in Arizona was created by an absence of leadership and commitment by the Federal Government to fix our broken immigration system. My hope is that the President will use this speech as an opportunity to reassert federal authority over immigration law and policy, and lay out his vision for a path forward," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, who will attend the speech on Thursday. "Enforcement of our laws is important, but the President must rise above the angry and misguided political rhetoric that creates and then feeds a never-ending appetite for punishment. While a lawsuit by the Department of Justice is a necessary legal step, a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws and leadership to make that a reality. Over the last year, the President and his administration have expressed a willingness and desire to pursue a comprehensive reform strategy. Sadly, too few politicians have had the courage to stand with him on this important issue. The true measure of the President's commitment to this issue is whether he will create his own strategy for moving reform forward and whether he will expose those in both parties who refuse to step forward and create a workable, humane immigration policy that will strengthen America."

As the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, President Obama - through this speech and continuing actions - can place the responsibility for immigration reform back where it constitutionally belongs: in the hands of the Federal Government.

Gutierrez: Obama Finally 'Assertive' on Immigration Reform

June 29, 2010 7:59 PM


ABC News' Devin Dwyer reports:

President Obama today met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at the White House to discuss comprehensive immigration reform ahead of his planned Thursday address on the issue from American University.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who introduced comprehensive legislation in the House in December and has been critical of the administration for not championing its passage, said he’s convinced the administration is finally taking immigration reform seriously.

“For months we have been demanding that this administration take action and be the lead on comprehensive immigration reform. And then, from the White House, we hear a president that’s committed and assertive and in command and in charge,” he said following the meeting. “So I think this Thursday we’re going to hear the president speak to the nation to have comprehensive immigration reform and why it’s important for him as a president.” Gutierrez said the president intends to use the speech to outline details of his proposal for addressing the nation’s estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants, which is expected to include some form of a conditional path to legal residency.

“It’s obviously not going to be more on enforcement. He’s done a lot of that already. He can only expand from there,” Gutierrez said, referring to criticism from immigrant advocates that the administration has heretofore solely focused on beefing up security along the border and deporting a record number of undocumented immigrants.

Gutierrez said Obama declined to discuss details of the administration’s challenge to the Arizona law, deferring to the Department of Justice. But, he said, the president agreed that the law’s pending implementation may help to build a sense of urgency towards legislative action on immigration this year.

- Devin Dwyer

Change in U.S. immigration policy rumored

BY ALFONSO CHARDY
achardy@ElNuevoHerald.com

Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 at
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/24/1697263/immigration-policy-change-rumored.html

Eight Republican senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama this week asking for confirmation that the White House is planning to defer deportations or grant parole to millions of undocumented immigrants, pending congressional debate on immigration reform.

An aide to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told El Nuevo Herald on Wednesday that the White House has not replied to the senators' letter. Moira Mack, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was not aware of the letter. "We have not yet received the letter,'' said Mack in an e-mail message. "We will review it upon receipt.'' She did not answer whether Obama was contemplating such a plan.

The senators' query is confirmation of widespread rumors swirling in recent weeks in the U.S. capital that Obama could be planning a surprise executive action to prohibit the continuing deportations of undocumented immigrants who have no criminal convictions.

PRIORITIES
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have been saying for months that their priority is detention and deportation of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. But officials have also said they are still detaining and removing non-criminal undocumented immigrants, though these are now described as "low priority.''

Figures released by ICE last week for the Oct. 1-June 7 period indicate a downward trend in the number of deportations of non-criminal undocumented immigrants compared to removals during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. But immigrant-rights advocates expressed skepticism about the statistics and blamed Congress for the lack of immigration reform.

"The senators acknowledge that immigration laws need to be fixed,'' said Cheryl Little, executive director of Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, referring to the senators' letter to Obama. "Yet it is Congress that clearly has failed to approve desperately needed comprehensive immigration reforms, reforms that these very senators have blocked.

''Immigrants were cautiously optimistic about a possible deferral of deportations, but they were not overly enthusiastic since their hopes for legalization have been dashed repeatedly before.

"If it happens, it would be good because it would lessen the fears that now exist in the community,'' said Alberto Pérez, a 26-year-old Guatemalan landscaper who was watching the U.S.-Algeria World Cup soccer match at a WeCount! Community Worker Center in South Miami-Dade on Wednesday.

Neither Obama nor any of his principal immigration advisors have made any public reference to suspending removals of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. But many immigration advocates have been urging Obama to take executive action to defer deportation in light of congressional reluctance to deal with immigration reform which could lead to legalization.

DEMONSTRATION
Nora Sándigo, executive director of American Fraternity, is planning a July 28 demonstration by U.S.-born children of undocumented parents in front of the White House to demand an end to deportations of undocumented immigrants who have no criminal records.

The letter to Obama was signed by Grassley and seven other Republican senators: Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and David Vitter of Louisiana.

"We understand that there's a push for your administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States,'' the letter reads. ``While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress' constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.''

Supreme Court Injects Reason into Immigration Felony Definition

June 15, 2010

Washington D.C. - Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an "aggravated felony." As a result, the Court held that Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for why he should be allowed to remain in the United States.

Many individuals like Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo, who had two misdemeanor convictions in the criminal court system, then face a separate set of rules under the federal immigration court system. The government had urged the Court to adopt a rule which would allow the immigration authorities to reclassify a misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, which would subject even a lawful permanent resident to mandatory deportation.

The Supreme Court found the folly in this approach and notes in its decision, "It is quite unlikely that the 'conduct' that gave rise to Carachuri-Rosendo's conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court." Applying a common sense approach, the court found that Carachuri-Rosendo's "petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an 'aggravated felony.'"

Before 1996, only the most serious criminal convictions could be defined as aggravated felonies. In 1996, Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies - lengthening the list of crimes that could trigger deportation for an immigrant, including even minor crimes where the person did not serve any jail time.

"The Supreme Court's decision restores a level of measure and rationality to immigration policies that often are unnecessarily strict and unforgiving," said Beth Werlin of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center.

"The decision is an important step toward addressing some of the absurdities of the immigration laws passed in 1996 that treat a shoplifter and a murderer in the same manner. Those laws have largely taken away the ability of immigration judges to look at the facts of a case and determine if the punishment fits the crime," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.

In far too many cases, immigration judges still lack discretion. Congress now should follow the Supreme Court's lead and restore immigration judges' discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case before taking the drastic measure of ordering a person deported.

Supreme Court ruling in favor of immigrant clarifies automatic-deportation law

The Texas man was ordered deported for possession of a marijuana cigarette and one Xanax pill. But justices say only serious crimes warrant the removal of legal immigrants from the country.

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
June 14, 2010 9:11 a.m.

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court blocked the government Tuesday from deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession charges, ruling that only serious or violent crimes called for removing otherwise law-abiding people from this country.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices stopped the deportation of a Texas man who had pleaded guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, a prescription anti-anxiety drug.

Based on these convictions, an immigration judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals slated Jose Carachuri-Rosendo for deportation to Mexico, where he was born. At age 4, he had come to Texas with his parents and had become a lawful permanent resident with a wife and four children.

His case illustrates the potentially harsh effects of a 1996 federal law that requires the deportation of non-citizens who are guilty of an "aggravated felony." Congress did not carefully define this term, however, and some immigration judges have said that a second drug-possession conviction could qualify as an aggravated felony.

The Supreme Court rejected that view in Tuesday's opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo vs. Holder. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony,' " wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.

The 1996 law and its automatic-deportation rule applies to all non-citizens who are living in the United States.

david.savage@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law

What You Need to Know About The New Law and How It Can Impact Your State

June 2, 2010

Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform.

The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.

To view the guide in its entirety see:

Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law (IPC Special Report, June 2, 2010)