Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / courts / High court won’t hear suit challenging new immigration law

High court won’t hear suit challenging new immigration law

The Arizona Supreme Court announced on Dec. 2 it will not hear a lawsuit filed by local governments that sought to challenge legislation affecting land development and public benefits for immigrants.

The petition for special action filed with the court on Nov. 23 by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns charged that the provisions in question were unconstitutionally included in a state budget bill.

League of Arizona Cities and Towns Executive Director Ken Strobeck said the court’s refusal to hear the case was unexpected and that it is not known if the League would contest the budget provisions by filing a lawsuit with the Maricopa County Superior Court.

“We we’re very surprised by it, and we felt like it was a very solid case on the merits,” he said.

One provision requires public employees to verify the legal status of people before they can receive public benefits. Under the provision, failure to check applicants’ legal residency status can result in misdemeanor charges being filed against offending employees. State citizens also can now sue if they believe a governmental entity is not properly verifying applicants’ citizenship.

The second contested clause prevents cities and towns from adopting new development impact fees or increasing existing fees for two years. Those fees are applied to new construction and generally pay for services such as streets and sewers.

The league’s lawsuit claimed the provisions were substantive, and therefore could not be packed into a state budget bill. The additions to the budget were also claimed to unconstitutionally fall outside the scope of Gov. Jan Brewer’s call for a third special session.

The lawsuit targeting Brewer and the Legislature’s Republican leadership exacerbated tensions between state and local officials.

During a Nov. 24 press conference, Brewer, Senate President Bob Burns, House Speaker Kirk Adams and immigration hawk Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the lawsuit as a cheeky attempt by local governments to avoid implementing tough sanctions against illegal immigration.

Adams said both provisions also fit comfortably in the realm of budget appropriations, as both were designed to limit public expenditures.

Strobeck, though, rejected the criticism and hinted the attack was aimed at creating political worries for local governments that would appear soft on immigration.

Most troublesome was allowing residents to sue public employees believed to be unlawfully aiding illegal immigrants with public benefits. That provision could result in local governments being forced to handle loads of unwarranted litigation, he said, adding that governments are already prohibited from giving illegal residents public benefits.

Other disagreements arose between the league and the Legislature over the developmental impact fees caps, as Adams accused the organization of reneging on an agreed-upon deal. Strobeck maintained that the league never agreed upon a clause that made the cap retroactive.

After the court’s announcement, Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman attempted to diffuse the tension between state and local governments by portraying the governor’s objection to the lawsuit as a matter of policy, and not politics.

“She wouldn’t have signed the bill if she didn’t think it was legal,” he said.

8 comments

  1. THANK YOU Arizona Supreme Court! What ever it takes to free our Country of the illegal aliens is good news. Again, “THANK YOU”!

  2. We need to pound on the Arizona League and ask our city councils to do just that . . . imagine siding with illegal aliens! And tell illegals that if they’d stop breeding like mice their own countries might be able to create enough jobs so they wouldn’t have to migrate into other people’s countries. And tell the Catholic Church to stop prohibiting birth control (and I do NOT mean abortion).

  3. One provision requires public employees to verify the legal status of people before they can receive public benefits. Under the provision, failure to check applicants’ legal residency status can result in misdemeanor charges being filed against offending employees. State citizens also can now sue if they believe a governmental entity is not properly verifying applicants’ citizenship.

    This is a fantastic bill. Don’t let this happen to you!

    MOTOR-VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS Latino group seeks delay for residency proofWednesday, December 2, 2009 3:04 AMBy Randy Ludlow THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles is six days away from canceling the registrations of nearly 45,000 vehicles driven largely by undocumented immigrants. Yesterday, a lawyer representing a Latino organization said that the agency cannot legally yank the license plates of those who do not meet the state’s demand for proof of legal U.S. residency. The League of United Latin American Citizens is asking a Franklin County magistrate to prevent the BMV from executing what the group’s attorney described as a Dec. 8 “death sentence” for thousands of Latino drivers. Three Latino businessmen testified that the BMV threat has cut their income by up to 40 percent as undocumented immigrants pack up and move out of Ohio because of fears that the loss of their cars will leave them unable to work. In arguments before Common Pleas Court Magistrate Pamela Browning, lawyer Dennis Muchnicki said state law does not allow the BMV to cancel registrations if vehicle owners fail to provide identifying information. The Latino group is seeking an injunction to block the BMV from demanding that those with questioned registrations provide a valid Ohio driver’s license, identification card or Social Security number. Browning did not issue an immediate ruling. The BMV mailed 47,457 letters on Oct. 8 to those with questioned registrations demanding the documents, which typically are not held by undocumented workers. As of yesterday, fewer than 6 percent of those notified had appeared at a BMV office, provided identification and updated their registrations. Assistant attorneys general representing the BMV countered that the state is properly enforcing registration laws and that the agency is not demanding anything different from Latinos than is demanded from all Ohioans. BMV field-operations administrator Jeffrey Rose, a former state trooper, testified that verified vehicle registrations reflecting the true identities of owners are vital to the safety of police officers when they stop drivers. BMV investigators’ findings suggest that thousands of vehicles may have been registered fraudulently through so-called runners — legal U.S. residents who collected fees from undocumented immigrants to register vehicles on their behalf. The BMV crackdown was delayed for more than a year after former Public Safety Director Henry Guzman met with Latino business owners and then asked for improvements to the get-tough policy he had requested. The state inspector general is investigating the delay and the role of “runners.” rludlow@dispatch.com As of yesterday, fewer than 6 percent of the 47,457 notified have updated registrations

  4. Taxes, paid by You & the Undocumented are the same in each state check your state : http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html

    GAS Taxes paid by you & the Undocumented are the same. Go to and check out your states tax; http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

    Cigarette Taxes paid by you & the Undocumented are the same, check this out in : http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html

    Clothing Sales Taxes, are the same paid by you & the Undocumented Immigrant; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States

    City Taxes, are the same paid by you or the Undocumented, since he pays rent and the LANDLORD pays the city : http://www.town-usa.com/statetax/statetaxlist.html

    Beer Taxes, are the same paid by you or the Undocumented: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/beer.html

    TAX DATA : http://www.taxfoundation(DOT)org/taxdata/show/245.html

  5. The numbers of illegal immigrants here, is far to many in one swoop to remove? Nor could we bus them out the country and the cost would be another insane cost to bare by taxpayers. But if it was compulsory by government laws for every employer in America to install E-Verification, knowing that their was mandatory prison and fines? Millions would start to leave, because jobs would fade away in time Another method would be making it a first class felony, instead of a stupid civil slap on the wrist. It really up to US taxpayers to fight for your quality of life, SO START WRITING 28 CENT POSTCARDS AND WARN THE INDIFFERENT POLITICIANS, THEY WILL BE HUNTING FOR THEIR OWN JOB?

    Although E-Verify is a very good illuminated measure, as seen through the eyes of every jobless American. It is a successful program that implements the need to remove millions of illegal immigrants from the work force. It is still under peril of being scratched-out or at the least, slowly dragged down to the faltering level of the local law enforcement training program 287 G? There are and have always have been powerful forces at work to reduce immigration enforcement, even as other entities are trying to weaken health care legislation. Personages in high places, whether it’s the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry, or pull-down-the-border fence extremists whose agenda is welcoming anybody who can slip past our border agents.

    Then we have the accumulation of impoverished illegal aliens, who are in direct competition with our own poverty stricken society. They have not only stolen jobs from blue collar workers, but are taking jobs in the white collar business world as well. This is why we need a moratorium on immigration, to give America time to climb out of this gigantic recession. Illegal immigrants must be deported through the computer mechanism of E-verify, and later when employment rises and the economy is stable, build on the 1986 Immigration act (ICRA). With amendments to Simpson/Mazzoli bill that allows a system of only accepting certain categories of scientific and professional immigrants. We can no longer accept the destitute, uneducated who have sucked the state treasuries of California, Arizona, along with other states dry to the point of bankruptcy.

    President Obama and his pro-illegal immigrant disciples have promised another Immigration reform package. The 1986 Act was signed in to law by Ronald Reagan, but was never–ENFORCED–and so that is why we have absolute crisis and an incessant flow of illegal foreign nationals. The numbers are estimated in entrants around 20 and 30 million, not what open border and liberal activists expect us to believe? NO IMMIGRATION LAW EVER WAS MEANT TO WORK? Its only because Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi made an error of judgment that E-Verify was not tabled? Today everybody knows about E-Verify, owing to the wealth of information that was exposed by Internet bloggers. It has become a sharp stick in the eye to parasite businesses and every movement in the open border culture. Have not the taxpayers been paying the full burden of subsidizing free health care, education and the tentacles of ever spreading welfare programs for illegal families? America is perceived to be a passionate people, a charitable people, but when we must endure the hardships sprung upon us by other foreign countries population, that this is too much financial baggage to carry any longer.

    In Arizona for instance where a newsworthy report has been released:

    Governor Jan Brewer and Republican leaders lashed out last Tuesday at the League of Arizona Cities and Towns for its lawsuit challenging a new law in order to eliminate illegal immigrants receiving public benefits. He said,

    “At a time when Arizona is suffering from budget deficits of unprecedented proportions and the state is struggling to meet the basic needs of its citizens, it is outrageous and shocking that the League of Cities and Towns would challenge legislation designed to protect the very entities that it was intended for,” Brewer also stated Arizona voters have shown several times, starting with the 2004 election, that they do not want taxpayer money going to help those in the country illegally. AS HAVE CALIFORNIA VOTERS, WITH THE FILING OF PROPOSITION 176, TO STOP WELFARE GOING TO ILLEGAL ALIENS? IT WAS SILENTLY DERAILED–NEVER TO REACH THE HIGHER COURT OF THE LAND.

    This proves beyond any doubt, that millions of illegal immigrants are siphoning off government entitlements meant for the legal inhabitants across our country, which is causing near economic collapse of state, county and city treasuries.

    Where another MASS AMNESTY is concerned, it is not those already illegally living here–but the unfettered volumes of humanity who will try to steal into America, before the–FINAL AMNESTY BELL–TOLLS? If the border is far from secure now, who will stop those who decide to immigrate here? The scenario is scary and beyond imagination and a harbinger of uncontrolled overpopulation. A boon to businesses and anti-American radical consortium’s, open border subversives, the wealthy and certain Democratic lawmakers looking for extra votes.

    Those who believe in America’s survival, without OVERPOPULATION as stated by the US Census bureau better read facts, not the lies at NUMBERSUSA. Those who want details of corruption in WASHINGTON and state government go to JUDICIAL WATCH. Overpopulation, traffic hell should go to CAPSWEB. Other sites of interest on Immigration enforcement is ALIPAC and AMERICAN PATROL. We the people have the ultimate power to throw out anti-sovereignty incumbent politicians. Call and command these do-nothings to–STOP–this facade at 202-224-3121.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top