Federal Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Immigration Law

[Ralph Wiggum]

Arizona's tough new immigration law was just hours away from taking effect when a federal judge issued an injunction blocking key portions of the law from being enforced.

Among the provisions U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put on hold are the "reasonable suspicion" section that would allow police to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant. She also temporarily blocked the part of the law requiring the carrying of federal immigration documents.

Lawyers for the State of Arizona and the Justice Department are reviewing the decision for more details on how it will impact putting the law into effect.

Meanwhile, law enforcement officers across Arizona are preparing to enforce the measures not blocked today, as many immigrants have begun fleeing the state.

"Nothing really is going to change other than the fact that if we come across an illegal alien that doesn't have a state charge now we can arrest them and book them into the jail or turn him over to ICE," said Maricopa county sheriff Joe Arpaio.

LINK

[rich_t]

This was not unexpected by me. There was NO way that this issue wasn't going to go to the SCOTUS. This was merely the next step. I look for AZ to file an immediate appeal, after which the 9th circuit will concur with this 1st judge. Then AZ will appeal that ruling to the SCOTUS.

[thundley4]

She also temporarily blocked the part of the law requiring the carrying of federal immigration documents.

That is stupid, federal law already requires those papers to be carried.

[debk]

That is stupid, federal law already requires those papers to be carried.

I don't understand why carrying around "papers" is such a big deal.

I don't know what it's like for an American living in Europe...but as a visitor, my passport (and driver's license) was always with me in my purse, including a copy of it in my suitcase and in my back pants pocket. Aren't Americans, who are in Europe - maybe elsewhere in the world - on visas, supposed to keep documentation with them at all times? So that we can "prove" who we are?

Why should it be any different for someone coming into our country?

[thundley4]

I don't understand why carrying around "papers" is such a big deal.

I don't know what it's like for an American living in Europe...but as a visitor, my passport (and driver's license) was always with me in my purse, including a copy of it in my suitcase and in my back pants pocket. Aren't Americans, who are in Europe - maybe elsewhere in the world - on visas, supposed to keep documentation with them at all times? So that we can "prove" who we are?

Why should it be any different for someone coming into our country?

If we get stopped for any traffic infraction and don't have our "papers", I think cops can hold us until our identity is  established.

[lastparker]

Meanwhile, law enforcement officers across Arizona are preparing to enforce the measures not blocked today, as many immigrants have begun fleeing the state.

Seems to me, it's working just fine.

[debk]

If we get stopped for any traffic infraction and don't have our "papers", I think cops can hold us until our identity is  established.

Isn't that what they are doing whenever they stop anyone? Verifying who we are?

RB and I got stopped up in Maine last summer, (we were lost and going 30mph in a 20mph zone - dumb, but we had no idea we were speeding)...first the officer said "Driver's License, registration, and proof of insurance, please"...then he tells us we were speeding. I found the rental car documents for him and she gave him her driver's license, and he walked back to his car. He came back....after he verified her DL and the documents. I don't think he would have been "nice"...if she hadn't had all that.

I doubt it's much different ...in any state in the country....when a WHITE AMERICAN is stopped. Why should it be any different for anybody else?

(The police officer was really nice...no ticket, not even a warning, told her to slow down, and gave us directions to the interstate which he said "would be more favorable to her driving habits".  )

[jediab]

The sad thing is, if all of the undocumented democrats from Mexico voted Republican, that fence would have been up last Feb and there would be 75k federal troops along the border.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Holder no doubt thinks of this as a victory, but really it's more like tying down the safety valve on a steam engine to stop that annoying whistling sound.  This is only going to redouble the frustration, anger, and outright rage the electorate has with the Oministration's utter disregard of this issue. 

[Mike220]

Figured something like this happened when I turned on Rush on my way home from work.

Be interesting to see what happens next.

[Doc]

Holder no doubt thinks of this as a victory, but really it's more like tying down the safety valve on a steam engine to stop that annoying whistling sound.  This is only going to redouble the frustration, anger, and outright rage the electorate has with the Oministration's utter disregard of this issue. 

I'm with you DAT......I think this will just escalate the hostility toward the administration (and the Democrats), going into November.......in a way, it's a good thing.

doc

[miskie]

I'm with you DAT......I think this will just escalate the hostility toward the administration (and the Democrats), going into November.......in a way, it's a good thing.

doc

The fact that Judge Bolton proceeded to overstep her bounds and suspend federal law in AZ will be more than enough to gin up voter rage. Its is absolutely required that legal immigrants and foreign tourists carry ID, and present it when requested. Also - kicking this back into the spotlight will make it clear that the Obama administration is not doing its job to protect America's borders.

[Ralph Wiggum]

If the Feds did their job and worked harder to keep illegals out to begin with, Arizona wouldn't have had to pass a well-intentioned but a very sloppy law.

[rich_t]

If the Feds did their job and worked harder to keep illegals out to begin with, Arizona wouldn't have had to pass a well-intentioned but a very sloppy law.

In what way do you find the AZ law to be sloppy?  I haven't read it, but it was my understanding that it largely mirrored the existing federal law.

[thundley4]

In what way do you find the AZ law to be sloppy?  I haven't read it, but it was my understanding that it largely mirrored the existing federal law.

Not only that, but it was crafted by a constitutional law professor that has done other work on anti-immigration laws.

[Ralph Wiggum]

In what way do you find the AZ law to be sloppy?  I haven't read it, but it was my understanding that it largely mirrored the existing federal law.

Just some of the analysis I've heard all along, and I'm certainly no lawyer.  What I believe the main argument is that state laws cannot supercede federal laws.  So the feds trump the state, even though the feds aren't enforcing the laws already on the books.

Meh, that's about all I know.

[rich_t]

Just some of the analysis I've heard all along, and I'm certainly no lawyer.  What I believe the main argument is that state laws cannot supercede federal laws.  So the feds trump the state, even though the feds aren't enforcing the laws already on the books.

Meh, that's about all I know.

Ahh.. I see.  But in this case, my understanding is that the AZ law wasn't an attempt to supercede the federal law.  It was merely enforcing the federal law at the state level.  I'm no lawyer either, but I don't see that a state that enforces a pre-existing federal law is an attempting to superceed it.

Doesn't each state have illegal drug laws on the books and enforce them?  Are these laws superceeding the federal illegal drug laws?

If they are, why hasn't the DoJ sued them over it?

IMO, this entire lawsuit by the Obama DoJ is about nothing more than pandering for the hispanic vote:  The more illegals that vote the better...

We have a major national security issue along our southern boarder that the idiots in DC refuse to address.  IMO.

[Doc]

Not only that, but it was crafted by a constitutional law professor that has done other work on anti-immigration laws.

Correct, Chris Kobach.....who lives here in the KC area, and is former Attorney General of KS.  I know the guy......he also crafted the Missouri law, which, although not as detailed as AZ, accomplishes the same thing, and for some strange reason has never been challenged by the Feds.......however, we don't have near the problems with illegals that AZ does, and a good portion of ours have left......

doc

[DefiantSix]

Just some of the analysis I've heard all along, and I'm certainly no lawyer.  What I believe the main argument is that state laws cannot supercede federal laws.  So the feds trump the state, even though the feds aren't enforcing the laws already on the books.

Meh, that's about all I know.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Sounds like if the constitution hasn't delegated that authority specifically to the Feds, then State law DOES trump federal law.

However, in this case, since Art. I, Sect. 8 specifically delegates authority over establishment of "a uniform rule of naturalization" to the federal government, I suspect that this - well intentioned - law is going down in flames before the year is out.

But let's not be imprecise, and grant the Regime any more authority than they've already got, m'kay.

[formerlurker]

Re: Arizona Immigration Decision   [Peter Kirsanow]


After a quick read of Judge Bolton’s decision in the Arizona illegal immigration case and based on a bit of experience in federal preemption issues in a previous life, I concur with Andy’s take on the matter.

Many in the media are reporting the decision as a major win for the Obama administration. That’s a sloppy description. It’s a temporary judicial win and a likely political problem — at least in the short-to-intermediate term — for the administration.

Today’s decision increases the probability that supporters of the Arizona law will see the federal government’s refusal to enforce the border as an issue in the fall elections. Those supporters, who outnumber opponents of the measure by more than two to one, will be motivated to vote this November — and again and again until the case is finally adjudicated on the merits. That might not be for some time, possibly extending to the 2012 elections. Obviously, that could complicate the reported long-term administration strategy of galvanizing those voters perceived as opponents of the Arizona measure. If the law is still not in effect in 2012, opponents of the Arizona law won’t be as motivated as its frustrated supporters.

Today’s biggest losers are Arizona Democrats, followed by any other candidates nationwide who will have to defend their opposition to the law and support for today’s decision.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTc4MDk1YzgwMjI5YTk3YjAxNzU2MDliMGY4MzZiNjI=

[Ptarmigan]

Not surprised by that ruling. While we're at it, we could go ahead and repeal the immigration law.