Why is President Obama aligning with other countries against Arizona?

Is this just another attempt to ridicule the American People and their wishes? What is he thinking? Why is our President going after a State of the United States and involving other countries? Does he hate us that much?

The Obama Administration is encouraging other nations to join forces against Arizona. So far, the Ninth Circuit Court has allowed 11 foreign nations, including Mexico, to join the United States' lawsuit against Arizona.


Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru filed separate but nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.

Update 2:


Note..We the taxpayers are the ones paying for this lawsuit. Arizona has a right to protect it's citizens when the Fed's will not.

11 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    US Constitution

    Amendment 11

    The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commended or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.

    US federal courts are constitutionally forbidden to have any jurisdiction in any case against a State. According to the constitution, the 9th circuit court of appeals has over stepped it's authority by ruling in a case against Arizona. By constitutional authority, this case can only be tried in Arizona State courts. Therefor, the decision of the 9th circuit court should be vacated and the case reheard in the Arizona Supreme Court.

    And seriously, a president trying to build a coalition of hostile foreign powers against the interests of one of the United States is insane. It seems to me as if he wants to start a civil war. The man is crazy. And now he is publicly promising "retribution against our enemies" if Hispanics will vote for democrats. What the hell does he mean by that?

    The Constitution grants congress the power to establish a uniform code of immigration and naturalization. It does not say that only agent of the federal government are permitted to enforce that code. Arizona is only trying to enforce federal law, not supersede it, alter it, or abolish it. They are doing nothing against the laws of the United States. Can you think of any other federal law that state and local authorities are forbidden to enforce? Interstate kidnapping is a federal crime, should your county sheriff have to let a kidnapper go free because he's not in the FBI? No, he captures him and then turns him over to the FBI. That is exactly what law officers in Arizona are doing with illegal immigrants. When they identify an illegal, they turn them over to ICE. It is really nothing sinister.

    State sovereign immunity

    In Hans v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, the court explained that

    we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." [Citations omitted.]

    In Alden v. Maine, the Court explained that while it has

    sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity[,]" [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.

    Writing for the court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers."

    However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of pre-ratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County, and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

  • 1 decade ago

    The courts, including the 9th circuit, are a separate branch of government from the executive, which is where the President is. I was unaware that the President was making an international call on this matter - is there a source on that? Also remember that the issue is one recent law passed by Arizona, not the state in general, nor its people, and certainly not the American people in general.

    As to why another country would be interested in such a suit, there might be direct impact on that country's citizens, or it could be on ideological grounds. I think the former is more likely.

  • 1 decade ago

    This appears to be more of an attempt to ridicule the President than vice versa. Of course, the criticism all began on FOX by two bimbos pretendiing to do news commentary. But let's see.

    Arizona passed sb 1070 but the president and the justice department questioned it's constitutionality. That doesn't mean it is or isn't, but that the federal courts need to clarify the matter. What anyone thinks at this point, including the President, foreign countries, Congress, or FOX News, will not determine whether SB 1070 is or isn't constitutional. The courts will decide in spite of the populous political drumbeat, and that's the way it should be. As Americans, we need to let the courts decide.

    That the President could somehow influence the 9th Circuit Court is laughable. The constitution provides a separation of powers which makes the judiciary separate from the administrative branch of government, and experience has shown the 9th Circuit Court to be extremely independent. Yet according to the two Fox geniuses, the Court's decision to accept amicus briefs from a dozen Latin American nations is all President Obama's doing, as if he somehow control these events. Don't get me wrong, I hope Arizona prevails and SB 1070 is finally ruled "constitutional", but let's not elevate stupidity to the next level. Allowing foreign countries to file amicus briefs neither equates to wrong doing by anyone nor proves that anyone hates his country.

  • 1 decade ago

    Obama should sue federal government because Arizona's is only following federal law. If you read the bill. They are just being effective where federal government has not and doing the jobs feds are supposed to be doing.

    I hope those people who have bought into his flat out lies will not re-elect this incompetent man again.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Arizona is doing something Inhumane and Unconstitutional Inhumane because Brewer wants to use Genocide to Hispanics and Unconstitutional because SB 1070 Insults Migrant Workers and calls them out as criminals clearly Arizona is wrong and Obama is right, Hispanics and Latinos have the right to be here in America.

  • Chin T
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Yes Obama hates most of the US that much.

    Hence we can sit in the back, and be punished. etc

    He is not our President and he never will be. He is the president of only the few.

    20 states are suing because the Obama administration has not listened to the objections in his Health Care crap.

    Obama is suing Az and most likely soon California if Prop 19 passes.

    I don't care what anyone says it is my right to call Obama's administration an abomination.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    He wants the illegal aliens here so they will vote for more liberals.

  • 1 decade ago

    You mean aligning with the Constitution of the United States. It's a highly unconstitutional law and it's the job of the Department of Justice to see it overturned.

  • Frank
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Obama is joining the Constitution of the United States, which states that the federal government has control over immigration, not the states.

    As a patriot, I believe in the Constitution, and so does my president.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    What do you expect from an unpatriotic imbecile?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.