By The Right Scoop


Gov. Jan Brewer says she hasn’t made up her mind, but she might just return the favor and sue the Federal Government for not securing the border. It’s clear she’s not going to go down quietly.

But the real reason I posted this is her reaction to the second question King asks her regarding that some law enforcement were complaining that the new law would be too much of a problem for them to enforce. She just starts laughing points out that they took an oath of office and it’s their job.

Enjoy:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • libertarianwoman

    There are a lot of states, maybe all, that could sue the Feds for not doing their job!!!

    Oh and if they are checking status only during an existing investigation, how is asking one more question going to make their job that much more difficult???? Like Jan said, “Do your job”.

    Cain/Christie 2012

  • Logic

    Larry King is such a douche. He is a prick in this interview but would play with Joseph Stalin's balls if he could interview him.

  • Braveheart1812

    DO IT! DO IT NOW!

  • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

    Sounds like a quote from the original Matrix!

  • Rachel

    I am a retired peace officer, and Governor Brewer is absolutely correct. We are supposed to enforce the law. Period. Each of those officers took the same oath that I did, to uphold the Constitution, both federal and state laws, as well as municipal codes.

    Peace officers are faced with 'uncomfortable' situations all the time. We deal with them according to what the laws dictate. If there are peace officers who choose not to enforce the law, then they are not doing their job and should either resign or be terminated. They should not have the option of 'selective enforcement'.

  • KeninMontana

    Thank you for your service Rachel and well said.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/V4XPNEVXYZEGMU2I4S4QB4WXWE Cheryl

    I like Jan Brewer! Either Washington abides by the Constitution and the laws that are on the books or we need to DEPORT the idiots in DC!

  • Don17000

    But they do have the option of selective enforcement. How many times have you been stopped by a traffic cop, and let off with a warning? Under the AZ law, the police could actually be sued for that. And how many times do you see on an interstate highway, everybody is speeding at least 10 mph over the posted limit. But if traffic is flowing smoothly, the police may choose not to start pulling people over.

    On public transit, usually there are laws against eating or drinking. I see people doing it all the time (giving a kid a candy, sipping from a water bottle), and the cops don't arrest them.

    There are pages full of stupid laws which remain on the books, from long ago… such as requiring cab drivers to carry brooms and dustpans, from the days before the horseless carriage… they were never repealed, they just aren't enforced anymore. It's no longer practical to do so.

    A judge in a courtroom can cite and fine someone for contempt of court, or just admonish them, or ignore an outburst and tell the participants, “Enough. Move on.” That's selective enforcement. A cop who knows judges are releasing people from the jails because they're overcrowded, may decide not to arrest a non-violent, non-dangerous offender. I've seen cops at a Phil Collins concert who didn't bother arresting people openly smoking pot, because there were thousands doing it and they just didn't have the manpower, and it would have turned an orderly and enjoyable event into something very ugly, while accomplishing next to nothing of any value.

    If a law stands a good chance of being unconstitutional, and there are challenges to it in place, the police may choose not to enforce it until those challenges are resolved, because if it turns out to be unconstitutional, all the resources spent enforcing it were wasted. And it can be a nightmare to remedy, if the law is found unconstitutional, because then there is the specter of hundreds of legal aliens who might have been arrested, and suffered loss of jobs as a result, as well as homes, etc… because they didn't have their papers on them at all times, which the Federal law doesn't actually require.

    In this case

  • Don17000

    Would that mean the Feds could also sue the states for not doing theirs?

    Not adequately enforcing speeding laws… not adequately enforcing building codes… not adequately maintaining roads… not adequately running elections of candidates for Federal office…

    Not sure we want to open this can…. too many worms, it will be difficult to get them all back inside…

  • KeninMontana

    “because they didn't have their papers on them at all times, which the Federal law doesn't actually require.” Try again Don.
    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem

  • Don17000

    The law only applies to aliens 18 years of age and over. (From the link you posted,

    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem

    What The Law Says
    Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states, “Every alien in the United States . . . shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations . . .” It also says, “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him . . .. Any alien who fails to comply with [these provisions] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor…”
    A minor isn't required to carry it at all times.

    There are also times when it simply isn't practical, such as when swimming, or if it was lost, stolen or destroyed and needs to be replaced.

  • KeninMontana

    No but adults are,children are wards of their parents so are covered and listed in the parents documentation. As for swimming that's weak it's not like an officer is not going to allow you do retrieve your bag. If it is lost,stolen or destroyed then it is the individuals responsibility under the law to report and get a replacement,again a weak and lame example. By the way “failure to identify” to LEOs is a crime, for anyone citizen and non-citizen alike,for which you can be detained for as long as it takes to establish your identity.

  • Don17000

    Children are wards of their parents, but are not in their parents custody and presence at all times. A parent may keep the documentation in a safe place at home while the kid goes off with their friends, or to a sporting event, or wherever. If a federal agent asks for it, the parent will be summoned and can produce it.

    The SCOTUS has ruled in Hiibel v Nevada that “failure to identify” does not apply to casual or consensual encounters, and applies to detentions but only requires suspects to state their names, not to produce written ID. And, of course, per Miranda, the person also has the right to remain silent.

    A written ID requirement generally applies only to arrests, although a state may legislate that failure to identify may constitute probable cause to obtain a warrant or to investigate further.

  • KeninMontana

    I am aware of Hiibel v Nevada,however you misrepresent the decision and the case. The court upheld the Nevada statute (stop and identify) and threw out Hiibel's claim of protection under the Fifth Amendment. You can claim the right to remain silent and at that point you will most likely find yourself detained even longer,legally, until your identity is established. Under the Federal law the parent or adult is required to have that “paper” on them,period no exceptions. Your strawmen are as weak as Obama's “ice cream” scenario. You are aware that the Federal statutes contain no probable cause clause as well as no prohibition of profiling aren't you? While Arizona's law has both a probable cause requirement and an overly emphasized prohibition on the use of racial profiling,by the measure of constitutionality the Federal Law actually fails that test while the state law goes above and beyond meeting constitutional requirements.Nor does the state law “preempt” the jurisdiction of the Federal government as has been stated before it only authorizes state and local authorities to assist in enforcement of existing partnership programs. Here is the decision on Hiibel;
    http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourto

  • libertarianwoman

    You forget, the way it was DESIGNED to work is power starts with the individual and flows UP. The only people who can sue the state for not doing their job are the people in that state.

  • Don17000

    Yes, the parent is required to have that paper on them. But if the parent is home, and the 14 -year-old stopped off at a video game store on the way home from school… then the kid won't have the paper, right? Under the AZ law, the kid would be committing a crime.

    In Hiibel, the ruling, from the very first sentence of your link, “In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court, in a split 5:4 decision, held that police officers could require individuals to identify themselves during an otherwise valid police stop, when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in a crime. “ So, it isn't just a random “stop and identify” thing, it specifically involved a Terry stop, and the Terry standards exclude an identification requirement. In Hiibel, it seemed to me that, since there was a vehicle and skidmarks, the cop could have simply asked to see the registration of the vehicle, and for the license of whoever was driving it.

    Regarding the racial profiling issue… the AZ law prohibits it, and requires probable cause… it is silent what constitutes either, and therefore on what standard is acceptable. Tell me what possible standard there can be to assess probable cause for “undocumented alien” that doesn't involve targeting only those who don't look like the traditional American stereotype? And if a US citizen happens to fit that description… say, the 21-year-old child who was born here, of immigrant parentage… that person won't get any registration card, doesn't lawfully need any ID… but can be detained?

    My wife is of Italian heritage, and we had friends who were American citizens by marriage, and lived here for decades, but barely spoke English. Their husbands and kids acted as interpreters, until they died or moved on to their own lives… under the AZ law, the adoption of which a candidate for FL Governor has made the cornerstone of his campaign, she would have been subject to constant detentions. (Citizenship papers aren't photo ID.)

    That's why I oppose the AZ law… it gives Big Government another tool with which to harass law abiding citizens.

  • Don17000

    I disagree. It was DESIGNED to work with power starting with just the property owners and flowing up. Individuals who did not own property were not intended to have any power. And most of the political power there was, the Founders reserved to and concentrated in the hands of the state legislatures. And their power, such as it is, exists only during election day, only at the ballot box, and can be applied only by the ones for whom they voted, and could not be withdrawn… except by the Senate, for whom even most of the property-owning individuals were not intended to vote.

    In fact, the creation of the electoral college is evidence that their decision would prevail only in the case of making the most obvious choice (i.e., one candidate gets a simple majority… something which rarely happened in the early days of the Republic). The rest of the time, they were simply creating a short list from which the House would select a President. At least, until they passed the 12th amendment, which essentially turned the executive branch over to the political parties, ignoring old George's warning.

    But by then, he was already dead….

  • AdamLS1

    They already do.

  • Anonymous

    Mostly, they don’t sue the states for non-enforcement of speed limits, for example. They just withhold funding for things, like highway construction. One exception is where they do sue states who appear to be victimizing minorities, racial profiling. They might sue to enforce the ADA, especially if the offender IS the state government… or it’s a private sector entity, they’ll probably just sue the offenders themselves.