Breaking: Major Provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law Placed on Hold
Jul 28th, 2010 by David Anderson
The Clinton appointed judge did not rule on the provisions, but gave an injunction which suspended the controversial provisions of the law while hearings take place. An appeal of the injunction is also likely. A preliminary injunction is given, as I understand it, when there is a substantial likelihood of the petitioner prevailing and you can’t undo the effect the action in question. One of our attorney readers can explain it easier I am sure. Reading summaries of Judge Bolton’s ruling she thinks the Feds have a case, but her reasoning is amazingly shallow and flawed. She said the Arizona law could encouragea patchwork of immigration laws and policy which could impact on our international relations which is a federal prerogative. She ignores that the Arizona law is the federal law. It just enforces what the feds say is their policy.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation’s toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge’s order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
“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,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
Breaking: Major Provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law Placed on Hold…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
I don’t like this law, but the Fed. government overstepping its bounds is even worse. Either way I think this is a political disaster for the Dems this election cycle.
“Either way I think this is a political disaster for the Dems this election cycle.”
George C. raises an interesting point. There are times that one should be careful of what you wish for. Politicially, Governor Brewer will be seen as defending her constituents and Obama is now seen as stopping her from doing her job.
David – Im glad you said you are not a journalist – because you are certainly not a lawyer either nor versed in any aspect of Federal Constitutional Supremacy. you said
“She said the Arizona law could encourage a patchwork of immigration laws and policy which could impact on our international relations which is a federal prerogative. She ignores that the Arizona law is the federal law. It just enforces what the feds say is their policy.”
no where in USC Title 8 does it say “attrition thru enforcement” AZ SC1070 does – this is not a mirror law
and this is NOT opinion – this is fact – happens to be my field – read Title 8 and all case law back to Ark v US 1893 – you might just be surprised. and discover a Federal judge, trained in law and experienced in jurisprudence might just have a point here.
opinions are fine – educated opinions are way better
and this is NOT opinion – this is fact – happens to be my field-
Yeah, right. Ever heard of these cases?
1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468; “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.
1984, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit;
United States v. Salinas-Calderon; “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294; “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
Bolton’s politically-ispired ruling will be reversed. Period.
I am with Rick on that one. Attrition through enforcement is the AZ laws objective. It does that by enforcing what? Federal law. The judge said legal immigrants could be burdened by having to prove to employers their status. HMM, I have to prove my status when I take a job even though I am a citizen. Legal immigrants do as well. Why would asking illegals to abide by the same law as everyone else be a burden on us? If this judge were so well trained, she would know there is no new burden just enforcement of the same old requirements since 1986.
I believe you when you say that this is your field. Only a person in that field who trys full time to circumvent the clear intent of the law could type the crap that you tried to pass off. You know very well the basis of the injuction was weak grasping for straws so she could have an excuse for not letting it go into effect before she could try the case. I get it.
This bill is of national importance and the entire region from Peru to Canada is watching the outcome. This is the woman’s 15 minutes of fame and she wanted to make sure she had the chance to be the focus regardless of the outcome of her real ruling.
try :
U.S. Supreme Court
De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
Lozano v. City of Hazleton US DISTRICT COURT
villas at parkside v city of farmers branch texas US DISTRICT CT
lau v nicholas SCOTUS 1974
plyler v doe SCOTUS 1982
and your 1983 decision leaves out for local law enforcement to do so they need a signed MOA between the two agencies and proscribed by Title 8
so again – you cite old cases and cut and paste and cherry pick….just like………andrew breitbart
David – come on – This bill is of national importance and the entire region from Peru to Canada is watching the outcome
try international importance – oh and from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego – farther area of interest
but then Sarah can see Russia from her house….so maybe even further
Sarah Palin never said she can see Russia from her house. Tina Fey from Saturday Night Live did.
and it was funny at the time.
But libs….God bless ‘em all….television is their reality.
Feb. 2010;
Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, 1st Circuit.
I believe you when you say that this is your field.
I don’t.
And you can see Russia from Alaska.