Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Ariz. governor countersues federal government Email this Story Feb 10, 8:13 PM (ET) By JACQUES BILLEAUD PHOENIX (AP) - Gov. Jan Brewer sued the federal government Thursday for failing to control Arizona's border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws, and for sticking the state with huge costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes. The lawsuit claims the federal government has failed to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. It seeks increased reimbursements and extra safeguards, such as additional border fences. Brewer's court filing serves as a countersuit in the federal government's legal challenge to Arizona's new enforcement immigration law. The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to invalidate the law. "Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer said as sign-carrying protesters yelled chants at her and at other champions of the immigration law. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment on the filing. But a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of policing the country's borders, called Brewer's lawsuit a meritless action and said Border Patrol staffing is higher than ever. "Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," spokesman Matthew Chandler said. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges." Brewer's lawsuit seeks a court order that would require the federal government to take extra steps to protect Arizona - such as more border fences - until the border is controlled. Brewer also asks for additional border agents and technology along the state's border with Mexico. The governor isn't seeking a lump-sum award, but rather asks for policy changes in the way the federal government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants who are convicted of state crimes. Such changes would give the state more reimbursement. Arizona's enforcement law was passed amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Its passage ignited protests over whether the law would lead to racial profiling, and prompted lawsuits by the Justice Department, civil rights groups and other opponents seeking to have it thrown out. The law would have required police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers had reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally. That requirement was put on hold by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, along with a mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. The judge, however, let other parts of the law take effect, such as a provision that bans people from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets. Brewer challenged Bolton's decision in an appeals court in San Francisco. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. Brewer's appeal is still pending. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, one of the lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, said Arizona bears staggering costs from illegal immigration, yet the federal government maintains the state is prevented from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Horne said Washington has failed to protect the state against an invasion by illegal immigrants. "The word 'invasion' does not necessarily mean invasion of one country by another country," Horne said. "It can mean large numbers of illegal immigrants from various countries." The governor's filing hammers on the issue of the state's unreimbursed costs for jailed illegal immigrants. Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who is now the Homeland Security secretary, regularly sent the Justice Department invoices seeking such reimbursement when she was governor. The lawsuit doesn't say exactly how much reimbursement money the state is seeking. Instead, it asks the court to interpret the criteria on which the reimbursements are based, which the state believes will ensure it gets more funding. Brewer's filing noted Arizona's latest annual reimbursement from the federal government totaled nearly $10 million and the state had to eat an additional $125 million. Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix, an opponent of the law, said Brewer's filing was intended to draw attention from the state's budget woes. Sinema noted the federal government has hired 8,000 new Border Patrol agents and added hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years. "The state will be hard-pressed to show that we have been denied any promised benefit," Sinema said. I wish Rick Perry had the balls that Brewer has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 And the protestors are....who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The US has a point - there have never been more border patrol agents/law enforcement at the border. But the state has a point, too - the cost to incarcerate illegals hurts the state, which is a cost the state wouldn't have to incur if the Fed was actually doing its job regarding deportations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 The US has a point - there have never been more border patrol agents/law enforcement at the border. But the state has a point, too - the cost to incarcerate illegals hurts the state, which is a cost the state wouldn't have to incur if the Fed was actually doing its job regarding deportations. Most of the people that hire me don't care how many people I have on a job site, they care that I get the project complete when I'm contractually obligated to do so. If I'm a month behind they don't care that I have 200 people working on a 10,000 square foot building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Most of the people that hire me don't care how many people I have on a job site, they care that I get the project complete when I'm contractually obligated to do so. If I'm a month behind they don't care that I have 200 people working on a 10,000 square foot building. As long as it's lump sum. If it's cost plus, they would care a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) As long as it's lump sum. If it's cost plus, they would care a lot. Not really, as with the exception of the very smallest of projects I've yet to see a lump sum contract without a guaranteed maximum cost. Additionally if the extra people are productive they will finish the project quicker which would reduce overhead cost that would be charged to the owner, thus making the over all cost less than it would otherwise be. The main thing is getting the job done, which the federal government at this point apparently has no real desire to do. It can be argued that the federal government is in breech of contract. Edited February 11, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Not really, as with the exception of the very smallest of projects I've yet to see a lump sum contract without a guaranteed maximum cost. Additionally if the extra people are productive they will finish the project quicker which would reduce overhead cost that would be charged to the owner, thus making the over all cost less than it would otherwise be. The main thing is getting the job done, which the federal government at this point apparently has no real desire to do. It can be argued that the federal government is in breech of contract. Yeah, that's my point. Lump sum (or fixed price) is guaranteed, so overages on salary would have to be eaten by the contractor. Cost plus contracts can pass extra costs on to the owner as long as they are justified. Either way though, there may be early finish incentives that would make it worth hiring more people, as you say. At least, that's my understanding of it. Could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Most of the people that hire me don't care how many people I have on a job site, they care that I get the project complete when I'm contractually obligated to do so. If I'm a month behind they don't care that I have 200 people working on a 10,000 square foot building. Okay, fair enough. But along those same lines, who cares if the US just sends more warm bodies to the border unless that will actually solve problems? Because I don't care if we double the border patrol if we're still hamstrung politically and socially about what to do with the folks that get caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 Okay, fair enough. But along those same lines, who cares if the US just sends more warm bodies to the border unless that will actually solve problems? Because I don't care if we double the border patrol if we're still hamstrung politically and socially about what to do with the folks that get caught. I agree with you completely. Until we make the environment hard on illegals and those that employ them we don't have a chance. We need to make it inhospitable for illegals, buy sending them back to their country of origin when ever they are found, by not allowing people to do transactions with them, whether that be to employ them, provide them with housing, provide them with education, or non-essential medical care. We also need to make it more difficult for them to enter the country. If we do all of this we could solve the problem in a few short years. Until we do that, it won't matter how many people you put on the border, you have enough to stand hand to hand and give them the authority to physically stop them from entering using drastic measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Don't worry, Napolitano is on the job already threatening the cartels. Things will simma down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I agree with you completely. Until we make the environment hard on illegals and those that employ them we don't have a chance. We need to make it inhospitable for illegals, buy sending them back to their country of origin when ever they are found, by not allowing people to do transactions with them, whether that be to employ them, provide them with housing, provide them with education, or non-essential medical care. We also need to make it more difficult for them to enter the country. If we do all of this we could solve the problem in a few short years. Until we do that, it won't matter how many people you put on the border, you have enough to stand hand to hand and give them the authority to physically stop them from entering using drastic measures. I am so sick and tired about both political parties on this issue. They focus on a list of what "should" be done first before step two begins. I wish ANYONE in elected office had the balls to just lay out a plan and have them all start at the same damn time towrads the same goal instead of quibbling about how they should fall in a priority list. Everything you said should and could be done if either party had the political will to do so. sadly enough, neither of them do. I seriously hope that if we ever stop fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that we actually deploy troops on the border protecting construction crews as they build a big ass wall . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.