CNMI AG Joins Michigan and 8 Other Republican AGs to Back the Arizona Law
























July 15, 2010

The CNMI has joined Michigan and 8 other states in their legal brief that supports the Arizona law in the U.S. vs Arizona court case. Well, no surprise here.  In fact, some joked that Siemer and Willens probably helped draft the Arizona law.

Michigan AG Mike Cox filed the brief to support Arizona's racist law.

Cox is a Republican running for governor, as is Florida's AG Bill McCollum who is way behind in the polls. Also running as the Republican candidate for governor, is Pennsylvania's AG Tom Corbett. The two candidates are said to be using the lawsuit as a political ploy to get votes.  It sure isn't working in Florida where McCollum is trailing terribly in the polls.

AG Cox also filed a lawsuit to oppose President Obama's healthcare law as did some of the other AGs participating in this ploy. This seems to be the new action of choice used when the Republicans fail to push their own agenda in Congress.

Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm disagrees with the Arizona law and with Cox's action. She can't run for re-election because of term limits.  Additionally, the move of the Pennsylvania AG is not supported by the Pennsylvania governor, Gary Tuma, who said, "The position of the administration is that the federal government has the power and should take the lead in developing a 50-state solution to the problem of illegal immigration."

Nebraska AG Jon Bruning, South Carolina AG Henry McMaster, Alabama AG Troy King, South Dakota AG Marty Jackley, Texas AG Greg Abbott, and Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli are the others who joined. All, of the state's attorney generals who signed off on the brief are, of course, Republicans. Most, like AG Cox also opposed Obama's healthcare plan.

The amici curiae brief filed yesterday requests to join the case in support of Arizona and the Court ordered that the motion was granted. The 16-page brief requests that the Court deny the U.S. Governments request for a preliminary injunction.

Hopefully, this move will help in efforts to get the US DoJ to file a lawsuit against the CNMI.  Human rights and legal rights organizations have been notified of the unconstitutional provisions in PL 17-1, as has the US DoJ.

There's no question as to why the CNMI joined Michigan and the other states.  Obviously, it fit their agenda of maintaining local control over their evil system where they can oppress the foreign workforce.

I predict that these politically motivated attorney generals, and the CNMI leadership, will be very disappointed when they see the United States win this lawsuit.

The immigration issue has become the civil rights issue of today.  In 5 or 10 years some of the racist and anti-immigrant supporters will be remembered in history books just as the once vocal Klu Klux Klan and other segregationist groups earned their status as groups who became scars on the face of democracy.

Photo by AP

16 comments:

Captain said...

Since in the NMI the workers that are here originally were brought in "legally". This is not very smart for the NMI to be joining something that is totally for a difference purpose.
The problem in the NMI with aliens is some of them trying to get out and into Guam. If anything I would suspect that Guam would be the one to join.

This in itself should bring more attention to this administration and in fact may even help the congress to decide favorably on the status of these "legal" workers.
Again this admin seems to be "shooting itself in the foot"

As far as the rest that Joined Arizona and also the Fed suit against Arizona, The way Arizona's law is written, I do not see how this can be "racial profiling" and unconstitutional until the "profiling" actually happens.
Then this then would be a case for a suit.(but I am no lawyer)

The fed's law is more broader and could be considered "racial profiling" BUT we shall see.

This is a hot topic and many are split on this issue for the individual States, out of frustration, to take action to force the Fed to take action and close the borders and protect the "border towns" and the residents against the violence etc.

I am also curious, some of the States that joined this have a Gov that is outgoing, some AG's have taken the action on themselves (I assume, by the articles)I see Florida on the list, is the Gov. supporting this or is the AG joining on his own, and is this permissible. I am wondering if it is an elected AG, can they do things like this on their own or do they have to get approval from the gov.?? I am not familiar with the many working of the various state laws.

Wendy said...

Hi Captain:

Florida Governor Charlie Crist is against the Arizona law. A quote: "What Arizona did is wrong," Crist said, "I'm the grandson of a Greek immigrant. The notion that you pull over 'suspect' people and demand their papers is not American. That's strange. That's not what America is supposed to be about."

McCollum did this on his own, as did most of the AGs. I cannot stand this guy. When he was in the U.S. House, he was an Abramoff buddy. He joined this movement for purely political reasons to gain votes. Actually, he will lose votes.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Captain. One advantage (or disadvantage) of an elected AG is that he is answerable directly to the people and is not necessarily subject to a Governor's public policy viewpoints.

By contrast, an appointed AG like Holder or Buckingham will always be in much more harmony with the appointing authority.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that the Governor's legal advisers want a ruling limiting the preemption powers of the Federal Government.It looks like another waste of government resources to me. Didn't the CNMI just sue the federal government and lose big time?

Perhaps Howie and Schemer just need another excuse to allow them to travel to DC.

Will they take Buckingham along with them? I expect that they will as they need someone to attend to their daily needs like opening taxis, carrying luggage and the like!

Anonymous said...

This hearing is in Arizona, not Washington, D.C. Neither Howard P. Willens nor Deanne C. Siemer signed the amicus brief, so their services will not be needed in Phoenix.

While the Honorable Edward T. Buckingham did sign the brief, there is no need for him to appear either, as the attorneys general will be represented by the Michigan AG, if oral argument is presented at all. Usually oral argument is heard only from the parties (i.e., USA and Arizona), not amicii.

I'm sure this will be well covered in the national press, but if we want to send anyone, who better than Pamela S. Brown?

Anonymous said...

So increased federal action is the answer? Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

See Garance Burke, “Federal prosecution of immigrants soared in spring,” GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press, July 15, 2009, available at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100716/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_prosecutions

“Federal prosecutions of immigrants soared to new levels this spring, as the Obama administration continued an aggressive enforcement strategy championed under President George W. Bush, according to a new study released Thursday.

“The 4,145 cases referred to federal prosecutors in March and April was the largest number for any two-month stretch since the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created five years ago, the Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found. They ranged from misdemeanor illegal entry to prosecutions of immigrants with criminal records.”

Id.

Anonymous said...

1:06 Buckingham is NOT honorable.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

What's wrong with prosecuting immigrants? If they commit crimes, they should be held accountable for them.

Anonymous said...

Since the CNMI now supports Arizona's racist law, shouldn't tourists boycott the CNMI?

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that the partisan Republicans are not interested in fixing the broken immigration system, just like they were not interested in healthcare or financial reform. If they did support immigration reform, then what could they rant about? These Republican AGs are not for anything. It's not about what they support, but it's about what they are against. They are against anything that the Democrats support. They had the White House for 8 years, yet we did not see immigration reform or stepped up enforcement. Everyone knows that the federal government has control over immigration. These AGs are partisan political game playing fools.

Anonymous said...

i agree with you anon 7:24PM. very true indeed.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree 100% with the first comment by Captian. If the US wins they can continue to do what they have been doing. That is nothing, and this hurts the CNMI where our workers are legal. A vote for the Arizona would make the US get off it's lazy behind and actually make some plans.
And Wendy, you said "The notion that you pull over 'suspect' people and demand their papers is not American". Well, that is not what the Arizona law allows you to do, however from what I understand the Federal law does allow you do just that. The Arizona law is weaker than Federal law. Another point, if the US wins this lawsuit this would just about be the death knell for the Obama and the Democratic party with reagards to upcoming election.

cnmi resident said...

I am so embarrassed to be represented by these knuckleheads. Buckingham is a joke. This administration is a nightmare. On the bright side, maybe this very public show of support by the CNMI government for the very unconstitutional and ill-conceived Arizona law will attract enough high-level attention to prompt Obama to sue the CNMI too. Crossing my fingers!

Wendy said...

Anonymous 10:45

You said, " If the US wins they can continue to do what they have been doing. That is nothing, and this hurts the CNMI where our workers are legal. A vote for the Arizona would make the US get off it's lazy behind and actually make some plans."

Doing nothing? Not quite. AP reported that federal prosecution of immigrants "soared to new levels this spring." From AP:
"The 4,145 cases referred to federal prosecutors in March and April was the largest number for any two-month stretch since the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created five years ago, the Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found. They ranged from misdemeanor illegal entry to prosecutions of immigrants with criminal records.

The government's heavy focus on immigration investigations already is creating a heavy burden for the swamped courts along the U.S.-Mexico border, whose judges handle hundreds more cases than most of their counterparts in the rest of the country." Plans like Obama's plan for comprehensive immigration reform?

Where is the quote that I made that you took out of context? My main argument/objection to Arizona's law is racial profiling, preempting federal law and violation of civil liberties.

And your idea that "if the US wins this lawsuit this would just about be the death knell for the Obama and the Democratic party with reagards to upcoming election" is BS plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

What racial profiling? The law has not begun yet. You are saying there will be racial profiling. You don't know that. I wish I could so clearly predict the future. It might happen, it might not. It might get some dangerous people off the streets. It might inconvenience some people. Our current federal law allows for asking for identification. Rhode Island has had this law for two years. How many lawsuits in Rhode Islands.
What I mean "by nothing will happen" is there will be no reform measures. You mentioned "Obama's Plan". Yes, they all have plans. Plans for this and plans for that. The CNMI has plans. Plans are Plans unless there is action. They want to continue to "have plans" for as long as possible which means...nothing.
And OK, my comment about the lawsuit being a "death knell" for Obama and Dems in November is my prediction. Maybe it is BS, maybe not. I can see about as clear with that as I can see racial profiling taking place in Arizona (eventhough the Arizona prohibits it).