RSS Feed Menu
A federal judge has moved in to block some key provisions of the Arizona immigration law:
A federal judge is blocking key provisions of an Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants from taking effect as scheduled Thursday, citing the likelihood that the controversial state law will interfere with the federal government’s authority to set immigration policy.
In 36-page ruling issued Wednesday, Judge Susan Bolton granted much of the Justice Department’s request for a preliminary injunction against the Arizona legislation, described as the toughest law of its kind in the nation. Bolton said the most widely publicized provision in the law—a requirement that police determine the immigration status of people they arrest or question—was certain to result in improper, protracted detention of foreigners and US citizens alike.
The law will take effect Thursday. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had no immediate comment on the ruling; the state could seek a stay of Bolton’s order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or, if that fails, from the Supreme Court.
Hannah August, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said Bolton “acted correctly” by sidetracking key provisions of the law, known as SB1070, and reiterated the Obama administration’s concerns that it usurped federal authority to set immigration policy.
“While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive,” August said in a statement. While states can have input, she said, “They must do so within our constitutional framework. We will continue to work toward smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws while pressing for a comprehensive approach that provides true security and strengthens accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level.”
The White House said President Barack Obama, who criticized the law in a speech last month at American University, had no immediate comment. The President was en route to New Jersey for a meeting with small business owners when Bolton’s ruling was released.
On Capitol Hill, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a staunch advocate of stricter immigration laws, said Bolton should have upheld the law in its entirety to help secure the nation’s border with Mexico. Otherwise, “I don’t know where that leads us except with chaos.”
Slide // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Not surprising. The law is blatantly un-constitutional.
While many on here that supported the law failed to appreciate the impact that the law would have on those (mainly Hispanics) that are legally in the US and would have had to have “papers” on them to prove that fact or face possible detention. Blatantly unconstitutional as I said and I am heartened the Judge Bolton stated the following:
Bolton said the most widely publicized provision in the law—a requirement that police determine the immigration status of people they arrest or question—was certain to result in improper, protracted detention of foreigners and US citizens alike.
busboy33 // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Who would possibly have thought this would happen?
Thank you for wasting everybody’s time with yet another “Law Declaring You Love Good Things” legislation to gin up sound bites. Why does this seem so very similar to the “flag burning” amendment debate?
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Thank god.
TAZ // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I like this way of dealing with the issue http://www.californiaemploymentattorneyblog.com/2010/06/employers-face-stringent-penalties-for-knowingly-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html .
diogenes1 // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Why is it that Mexico and nearly every other country in the world asks for documents to verify if someone is in the country illegally, but this is not allowed in the U.S.? This is absurd. Every country has the right and the responsibility to protect it’s sovereignty by making sure that people are not in their country illegally. If it’s good enough for Mexico, then it should be good enough for the U.S.
busboy33 // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:01 am
“If it’s good enough for Mexico, then it should be good enough for the U.S.”
Vote Republican — shooting for the lowest common denominator since 1956!
medinnus // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“If it’s good enough for Mexico, then it should be good enough for the U.S.”
Two thoughts.
As soon as the police demand papers from Caucasians to establish they’re not illegals from Eastern Europe as often as they do Latinos, this law would quickly be tossed on the scrap heap.
As for being good enough for Mexico – you will note the lack of track marks going the other way. There is a reason people want to be here. There was an old Hogan’s Heroes joke that goes like this:
Nazi: Do you have your papers?
Detainee: Here you are.
Nazi: Do you have any papers to prove these are your papers?
Non-Contributor // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I guess republicans don’t see that having to carry papers as losing your rights?
Oh wait, republicans don’s see having Mexican’s carry papers as losing rights because you would never mistake a Mexican for a republican.
jakester // Jul 29, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I figured this would happen. But the people opposed to this law are people for what ever reason, don’t care or are actively encouraging the hispanic take over of at least the SW USA. Of course, every country in the world has the right to enforce immigration laws except hte USA; cause if we do it, it’s racist. 1 million illegals in 1986, 15 million now. Can’t wait until all our cities look like Latin America barrio towns.
jakester // Jul 29, 2010 at 4:18 pm
medinnus
If there were 15 million illegal Eastern Euros in the USA, you might have a point. But you are just playing the phony race card just like La Raza.
Slide // Jul 29, 2010 at 4:47 pm
jakester // Jul 29, 2010 at 4:17 pm: “I figured this would happen. But the people opposed to this law are people for what ever reason, don’t care or are actively encouraging the hispanic take over of at least the SW USA.”
Yep. That must be the reason. It couldn’t be that those that oppose the law value our Constitution and are repulsed by the concept that American citizens have to carry their “papers” with them or face being detained by the government. That couldn’t be it right?
busboy33 // Jul 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm
@jakester:
just FYI — tossing in ‘LaRaza’ to any hispanic discussion is very likely to get you a “phony race card” too.
Yes, we all know that they are the most evil, insidious, blasphemous group, and yest we know that their name translates to “The Race” which with the right background music can sound ominous (dum dum DUUUUUUUUMMMMM!!!!), but they really have nothing to do with any of this, and there only reason to mention them is to try and gin up a “the gangs are massing to overwhelm us!” type of defensive mentality. It’s relatively transparent, and it cheapens the rest of your comment.
gravymeister // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:19 pm
For years I’ve heard conservatives condemn France and Mexico for requiring ID cards, while America didn’t. I have lived in France as a non-citizen for thirteen years. The number of times I was asked for my papers, please? Zero. I have lived in Arizona for 35 years, visiting Mexico many times. The number of times I was asked for my papers? Zero. It is Republicans that have opposed the National ID card for decades.
I have traveled through Texas dozens of times over the years. On every trip I was asked at immigration checkpoints if I was a US citizen. Number of times I was asked to produce papers to prove it? Zero. Perhaps that I have white skin, light brown hair, and blue eyes made thing easy for me. Naaaaaaah!
I got off easy because there ain’t no such thing as racial profiling in America, or France, or Mexico.
The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and weak, or the majority from the minority . Quite the contrary.
jabbermule // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Slide // Jul 29, 2010 at 4:47 pm
“It couldn’t be that those that oppose the law value our Constitution and are repulsed by the concept that American citizens have to carry their “papers” with them or face being detained by the government. That couldn’t be it right?”
That must be it. As a matter of fact, I’m going to stop carrying my driver license, proof of insurance and registration when I drive. Then I’m going to drive 120 mph wherever I go. Then when I get pulled over and detained, I’m going to have the feds step in and sue the state of California for violating my civil rights. And the countries of England, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, France and Italy are going to step in and sue California as well, because that’s where my ancestors are from.
Yep, I’m really repulsed by the fact that EVERYONE has to abide by the law, and NOBODY gets any special treatment. How f*cking horrible is that????
When I go to the store and buy something with my debit card and they ask for photo ID to prove it’s really my card, I’m going to tell them to screw themselves and stop violating my civil rights, and give me the damn merchandise. When I apply for a car loan or a mortgage and they ask for my social security number so they can check my credit score, I’ll sue. In fact, this whole business of a credit check is very Nazi-like. I’m calling the ACLU. When I apply for a job, they don’t need to see my resume or do a background check or verify my previous employment or verify where I went to school, they should just give me the goddamn job merely because I asked for it. They owe it to me.
This country is controlled by fascists and Nazis who constantly ask for papers and identification…I’m horrified and offended, and I think we should protest.
jabbermule // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm
If the federal government is suing Arizona based on the argument that they don’t want a patchwork of different immigration policies around the country, then they should also sue sanctuary cities for having different immigration policies from federal law.
Because they’re not, it’s proof that the government is doing this for nothing more than political gain.
Arizona should counter sue the feds for NOT enforcing immigration law and for all the social and economic costs associated with additional law enforcement and public services.
jabbermule // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm
medinnus // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“As for being good enough for Mexico – you will note the lack of track marks going the other way. There is a reason people want to be here.”
And that reason is?
torourke // Jul 31, 2010 at 5:49 am
Gravymeister,
I have a feeling that if you had been arrested in France or Mexico, you would have been asked to produce some identification papers. Have you bothered to familiarize yourself with the Arizona law in dispute?