United Liberty
Federal Court Puts Arizona Immigration Law On Hold
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 4:50pm | posted by Doug Mataconis
A Federal Judge in Arizona has blocked the key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect tomorrow:
PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday, weighing in on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on a border state’s fierce debate over immigration, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court here said that some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.
But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.
Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continued to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
Specifically, the injunction prevents the following provisions of the law from going into effect:
• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.
• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers.”
• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)
• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.
While the Court’s Order spends most of the opinion discussing the Federal Govedrnment’s argument that the Arizona law unlawfully pre-empts Federal immigration law, it also recognizes, correctly, that it has the potential to negatively impact the rights of people who are in the United States legally:
Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification. (See Escobar, et al. v. City of Tucson, et al., No. CV 10-249-TUC-SRB, Doc. 9, City of Tucson’s Answer & Cross-cl., ¶ 38 (stating that during fiscal year 2009, Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903 to “arrest” and immediately release 36,821 people).) Under Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement
This decision, which is not the end of the road by any means, strikes me as correct.
As the Court notes in the highlighted quote above, the question at the preliminary injunction stage is whether it would be more harmful to allow a potentially unconstitutional law to go into effect, or to suspend the law until the Court has had a chance to conduct a full hearing on the law’s merits. In this case, it’s fairly clear that the potential dangers of racial profiling and legal-residents being caught up in a Sheriff Joe Arpaio immigration net were severe enough to justify giving the Court time to look at the law without the danger of further litigation being filed because individual rights are being violated.
Already, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vowed to appeal the Court’s decision, which isn’t surprising since that’s what either side would have said depending on the Court’s ruling.However, any appeal process is going to be a long-term matter and that it will be a year or more before the legal issues raised today are ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Before that happens, though, we’ll see what the political consequences of this decision wil be. Nearly every poll on the issue shows that most Americans support the Arizona law, and it’s no doubt likely that Republicans will try to use this decision — by a Clinton-appointed judge —- against the Democrats in the fall. Whether it will work is something we won’t know until November 3rd.
“The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money,” Bolton wrote.
FACT: Federal law requires that documents be carried at all times, but federal officials do not enforce it. The state law simply sought to enforce it.
1) The judge sought to gut the most controversial issues. Not on the grounds that they were wrong legislation, just that they were “burdensome” to the Federal Government. Judge Susan, please tell that (in person) to the widow of MURDERED rancher Robert Krentz and those in AZ who are daily impacted with the violence associated with illegals. FEDERAL LAW requires documents – but the same federal officials that would be “burdened” by SB1070 don’t enforce the federal law.
2) Crime and blood is on your hands US District Judge Susan Bolton! If an illegal alien is incarcerated and then released to kill, rape, rob again do the victims/families sue you, the Federal Government, and the law enforcement for failing your United States Constitutional obligations to their safety? They should!
3) The Democratic strategists vs. Republicans tells a lot about how they view the safety of Americans and our Constitution. Dems greatest concern: Never waste a good crisis! Do nothing about this massive problem and use it as a voting tool. Republicans: We need to secure our borders and stop the criminal activity. Oops! Except that Bush didn’t want to really address this issue either and so courted the Latino vote while doing too little border security.
Five states have introduced legislation similar to Arizona’s law, and 20 others are reportedly considering it. Gee, I wonder why?!? NOT!!!
Those who do not support serious and immediate action to secure our borders are either here illegally or care nothing about the U.S. Constitution and their rights / responsibilities as U.S. citizens. Those who oppose SB 1070 are supporting, harboring and abiding lawlessness within our borders.
There is no middle ground. You are either a citizen, here LEGALLY or you should not be in the USA. Oh, and there is no RACE in I-L-L-E-G-A-L (la Raza). It becomes a race issue for those who have no good argument.
PERSONALLY : I WOULD .
1.PUT TROOPS TANKS -EVEN SNIPERS ON OUR BORDER WITH MEXICO TILL THE MEXICAN GOVT SQUARES ITSELF AWAY -AND HANDLES THE CARTEL VIOLENCE AND CRIME PROBLEM -BEFORE IT COMES HERE.I WOULD SECURE THE BORDER - NOTHING COMES IN UNLESS LEGALISED.AUTHORISED .
2. I WOULD ENFORCE ALL EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS TO THE MAX -FOR ILLEGALS AND FOR PEOPLE WHO HIRE THEM -HOUSE THEM AID THEM AND ABET THEM ———-BUT ——
TO BE COMPLETELY FAIR ——-ONLY AFTER TRUE HARDCORE IMIGRATION REFORM HAS BEEN DONE TO THIS BROKEN SYSTEM —-IF THERE ARE STILL ILLEGALS AFTER REFORM AND A SECOND CHANCE GIVEN -THEN THEY DESERVE TO GET ARRESTED AND DEPORTED ….
THE CURRENT OPTIONS THEY HAVE :NATURALISATION PROCESS :MILITARY SERVICE:
VISA AND VISA EXTENSIONS STUDENT -RELIGIOUS WORKER AND EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS -PLUS MANY CAN APPLY AND GET A GREEN CARD OR AN INDIVIDUAL FEDERAL TAX ID ACCOUNT .BUT THESE ARE ONLY IF THEY ARE STARTING OUT LEGALLY FROM THE GET GO .
MANY ILLEGALS WHO HAVE GOTTEN TRAFFIC TICKETS AND EMPLOYMENT CHARGES THAT ARE HEAR ILLEGALLY HAVE FORFIETED THE LEGAL OPTIONS -BECAUSE THE INS /FEDERAL GOVT PERMANENTLY BARS CITIZENSHIP TO MOST FELONS . SO THE ONLY OPTIONS LEFT ARE -A STATE DEPT EXEMPTION IF THE PERSON IS COERCED COMMING TO THE U.S. TO WORK AS SLAVES TO HUMAN TRAFFICERS IN SWEAT SHOPS OR SEX TRADES WHERE THE TRAFFICKERS PROMISE WORK -AND PAY AT A HIGH PRICE THEN TAKE THE PASSPORTS AWAY WHEN THEY GET HERE AND TURN THEM INTO DRUG ADDICTS AND OR SLAVE LABOUR -THE STATE DEPT GRANTS CITIZEN SHIP IF THE VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICERS ARE ARRESTED -AND RATTED OUT AND CONVICTED BY EVIDENCE OF VICTIMS .THE ONLY OTHER OPTIONS ARE THROUGH ASYLUM COURTS< THEY ACTUALLY HAVE -PRISON EQVIELENTS FOR FORIGN NATIONALS THAT ASK FOR ASYLUM UP FRONT -SO PEOPLE ARE ROTTING IN JAIL CONDITIONS NOW BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO BECOME LEGAL THE LEGAL WAYS FROM FORIGN COUNTRYS LIKE IRAN -SAD> < NEEDS CHANGING BADLY FOR BETTER CONDITIONS > AND THE ONLY OTHER OPTIONS THEY HAVE WOULD BE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL PARDONS AND AMNESTY WICH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOESNT WANT . OR IF THEY WERE GIVEN TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE OF HUMANITARIAN REASONS BY NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES -DUE TO NEED OF POLITICAL ASYLUM OR REFUGEE STATUS SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVT CANT EXCEPT FELONS AS CITIZENS NORMALLY -ILLEGALS ARE BARRED -SO ANOTHER OPTION IS GRANTED TRIBAL STATUS BY TRIBAL COUNCILS OR CHIEFS < BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOR THE GOVT CONTROLS WHO A TRIBE ALLOWS TO BE A MEMBER - BUT ONCE A PERSON /EVEN AL ILLEGAL BECOMES A TRIBAL MEMBER -BY FEDERAL GOVT REGS-CONSTITUTIONALLY OR BY TRIBAL TREATY THEY ARE DEEMED 100 PERCENT AMERICAN CITIZENS .
I THROW THIS OUT THERE BECAUSE -ME ID RATHER ALL 20-30 MILLION ILLEGALS -WITH EXCEPTION OF CRIMINALS MURDERERS THIEVES -SEX OFFENDERS -SOCIAL SERVICE ABUSERS . GET CITIZEN SHIP THAT ARE HERE - SO THEY HAVE TO BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE - THEY GET TICKETS -GO TO JAIL -GET SUED PAY TAXES LIKE THE REST OF US - THEY PAY THERE WAY PERIOD AND ARE FORCED TO RESPECT OUR LAWS WICH WOULD BECOME THERE LAWS TOO . PAY BACK TAXES AND JAIL/COURT FINES ETC ETC.
I SAY THIS BECAUSE I FEEL THE GOVT IS AT FAULT FOR NOT SHUTTING THE BORDER DOWN 5 DECADES AGO . SO NOW WE HAVE ILLEGALS HERE FOR TWO -THEREE GENERATIONS - WE HAVCE HIGH SHOOL KIDS AND EVEN MILITARY MEMBERS THAT ARE FULL BLOODED AMERICANS -ANCHOR BABIES FROM 20 -YEARS AGO THAT WILL BE WATCHING THERE PARRENTS DEPORTED IF STATES LAWS GET ENFORCED WITHOUT IMIGRATION CHANGES .
AS FOR OUR< UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN -MARINES-ARMY NAVY > THAT RECRUITERS WENT SPECIFFICALLY AFTER TO EXPIDITE CITIZENSHIP FOR SERVICE ENLISTMENT TRADES- ANY SOLDIER < LEGALISATION PAPERWORK OR NOT FINISHED OR NOT THAT FIGHTS -GETS DISABLED OR DIES FOR THIS COUNTRYSHOULD BE MADE A CITIZEN AUTOMATICALLY ALONG WITH THERE IMEDIATE FAMILY -WIVES/WIDOWS/BABIES/ CHILDREN —BECAUSE IN MY EYES THEY HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO BE HERE UNLIKE OTHERS .SAME WITH ANCHOR BABIES IN THE SERVICE THERE PARENTS AT LEAST SHOULD BE GRANTED RENEWABLE VISAS . BUT THATS JUST MY FULL OPINION
MY MAIN WORRY IS LOSS OF CIVIL LIBERTY THROUGH A NATIONAL ID /RFID SYSTEM - SCREWING WITH MY PRIVACY MONITERING EVERY WERE I GO BY SCANNERS -TO ME THIS WOULD BE TOO MUCH LIKE END TIMES MARK OF THE BEAST STUFF -IF THE GOVT WANTS MORE ACCOUNTABILITY -FINE -JUST DONT GIVE THEM MORE CONTROL I WILL NOT TRADE MY LIBERTY FOR SECURITY :}
As soon as I found a link to the incredible The Top 12 Reasons To Burn A Quran On 9/11 piece on Hubpages I determined that this blog’s readers really should have a chance to read this: http://hubpages.com/hub/The-12-Top-Reasons-To-Burn-A-Quran-On-911