Posted on 07/23/2010 9:17:48 AM PDT by Nachum
Arizona's controversial anti-illegal immigration law is here to stay, at least in some form, a federal judge said Thursday in Phoenix.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who is presiding over the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona over the legislation, said she has no intention of blocking the entire law, though she did not deliver a ruling on the closely watched case.
Bolton did, however, say parts of the 14 sections the law could be removed, the Arizona Republic reported.
Arizona's law, Senate Bill 1070, gives police the ability to question a suspect's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
The list, ping
Onward and upward...SCOTUS here we come!
The Ninth will vote in favor of the Taliban.
FREEp the poll while you’re there. IT needs some help.
Conrade will step it into another court, like the oil drilling, challenge, challenge, challenge, anything to slow it down....
The poll is rigged. This poll can not be correct.
It is being spammed by the O’bots. Every poll
taken any where in the country is for this law.
Sorry O’bots it ain’t working. Go to Plan B
“Call all Republicans and Tea Party people racists.”
F.U.
My hope is that the case makes it to SCOTUS and in a 5-4 decision the Arizona law is upheld. Roberts writes the opinion pointing out that when the Executive branch is derelict in its duties in enforcing Federal laws that the States have a right to implement their own if they mirror the Feds. And, that the States have a right to sue the Feds when the Feds won’t do their jobs and the States can prove damages.
(finger) to you Barry
So can judges. They can be impeached.
The Ninth upheld Arizona’s E-Verify law.
WTF does this mean? Will the law take effect next week or not?
The Supreme Court will decide this case, as the Justice Dept must be seen dragging this out for the illegals, by the illegals and with the illegals, right into election day.
Judge Bolton has not yet ruled on the case, reportedly. These are only exerpts of her questioning during the hearing taking place. Winning in her court is just the first stop, in my opinion.
She doesn’t get the last word and she knows it, so she’d like to guess the winning side, or at least split the baby so she doesn’t look like a complete idiot when the SCOTUS rules. A Clinton appointee, she may be the only liberal who has actually READ the bill.
I heard that the judge (even though she’s a Dem appointee) basically said that the government had no case, which is the truth.
I don’t like the law because I think it’s unenforceable and it gives fodder to our enemies because it is being cast solely in terms of Hispanic illegals, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of others there are, including those who have crossed the Mexican border from Asia, the Middle East, etc. or simply overstayed their visas.
But I have never understood how the government could have thought they had a case - unless they knew they didn’t, and were just doing this as a publicity stunt and to set the stage for some other attack. I don’t trust them.
NO JUDGE should be able to over turn the will of the people!! This issue should fuel the flames against the current tyranny occurring all over this country.
Voted. BTTT.
Sorry, but you are wrong. This law is a direct mirror of the Federal law and does NOT target hispanic illegals. It targets all illegals, if they are stopped for a traffic violation(or some other infraction) and can't show legal ID they can be detained, whether they are Swedish or Mexican. This law is enforceable, because if it isn't then neither is the federal law. BTW, you sound like a troll.
Ping!
It means that some, and perhaps even most, of the law will indeed take effect next week.
Why not just make it mandatory for the police to ask *every* suspect's immigration status, suspected illegal or not. That way no claim of profiling could be made.
In every encounter I've ever had with the police, the very first thing they've always "requested" was my ID. So what's the difference?
Oh, please, I’ve been posting here probably since before you were born.
I don’t think being opposed to illegal immigration means that one has to hate Hispanics, but unfortunately, it sometimes comes across that way. I’d like to see the other illegals included too, among them, the many visa overstayers, many of them from the Middle East and Africa, some of whom have actually been involved in terrorist plots against the country in which they are living (the US, because nobody ever throws them out). Then there’s Obama’s aunti Zeituni, who lived here illegally for 10 years, on welfare, even though she had a deportation order issued against her...and was then formally permitted to stay a month or two or go by an immigration court judge. So let’s talk about that, too.
I don’t think its enforceable because I have family in law enforcement and one of the reasons cops don’t like doing this is that if the person is an illegal, he is supposed to be handed over to the feds, which often means that (a) the cops spend all their time filling out paper work and most of their entire shift trying to get some bum into federal custody (and believe me, the feds don’t want them); and (b) the federal jurisdiction has priority and does nothing and essentially just releases them again with a hearing date which they never show up for. I thought that a practical state law, for example, forbidding sanctuary cities and making everyone who came for any state or local government service (schools, medical, etc.) present proof of legal residence, as a start, would have a discouraging effect.
Then the next step is to develop a serious plan for an immigration bill, because like it or not, there’s one coming down the pike, and we need to have some plans. Immigration should be what is helpful to the US, not what satisfies some bizarre vision of the left. So we need to look at things like short term immigration (guest workers), no “family reunion,” no “birthright citizenship” (thousands of Chinese pay to come here every year to have their babies born in the US, and then they return to China with an American citizen), etc.
If people sit around insulting anyone who offers any suggestions, then Obama is going to get away with exactly what he wants (which I don’t think will include amnesty for Mexicans, but which probably will include it for all the millions of other illegals here, particularly since he has already said that he wants to increase Muslim immigration).
Interesting. 59% of the people taking the poll stated the law was unconstitutional. I wonder how may of these people would really know something is unconstitutional! I’ll wager most of them never read the constitution! This must be a liberal rag...
Failure by the President to enforce the laws is an impeachable offense.
Thanks for posting this.
I expect things to “heat up” in AZ during the next week. www.answercoalition.org is planning a mass protest in AZ on the 28th, right around the time the law is supposed to take effect. They have links on their site to sign up to be bussed to AZ.
........bump.........
I guess it's not necessary to wonder whether you understand why we have a written Constitution... It's also not necessary to wonder whether you understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. Nor, for that matter, need we wonder if you understand what is meant by "rule of law."
You clearly understand none of these concepts.
This law is really a reverse "Cloward-Piven" stategy against the federal government by conservatives.
It is intended to so overwhelm the federal government's ability to process illegal alien requests, that the system breaks down and the feds are forced to deal with the reality of the situation.
The problem is, the lefties in the federal government also recognize what this really is.
-PJ
Too bad it’s not here in the fifth circuit...I think they would hang with the state on this one.
If the judge does not issue a preliminary injunction then she does not believe the Obama Regime’s case is a done deal.
I think she is trying to give half a loaf to see if she can slide past the 9th.
Check this out - precedent for AZ ...
Found this little nugget in the Columbia Law Review. Author is definitely against enforcing immigration laws, but there are three interesting paragraphs in Section II B. And ya gotta remember that this was written BEFORE SB 1070 was passed - so the restriction in the third paragraph is MOOT.
If you wanna read the entire paper it is at:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/5/Rodriguez.pdf
However, I have posted the three paragraphs here:
“The Tenth Circuit has provided the most analysis regarding state and local law enforcement of federal immigration law. In United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez and United States v. Santana-Garcia, the court of appeals ruled that federal immigration law did not displace state authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law. In Vasquez-Alvarez, the defendant was arrested by an Edmond, Oklahoma, police officer based solely on his illegal immigration status. The court stated that immigration provisions indicated that there was no conflict between state and federal immigration enforcement. While federal law did not itself authorize the arrest of an immigrant by a state officer, it did not displace state authority to do so. In fact, the court noted that the portions of immigration law that outline how states may cooperate with the federal government “evince[ ] a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”
The Tenth Circuit cited Vasquez-Alvarez two years later in United States v. Santana-Garcia, a case involving a Utah state trooper who pulled over a vehicle that failed to stop at an intersection. While ultimately concluding that the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle in the first place, the court stated that “federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’”
3. State Enforcement. — Even if the Immigration and Naturalization Acts do not preempt state enforcement, an additional element must be present before state officials can enforce federal immigration law: express authorization under state law to enforce federal law. Even in Gonzales, in which the court of appeals stated that state enforcement of civil immigration provisions was preempted by federal law, enforcement of criminal provisions was allowed only if state law authorized such enforcement.”
*****
So, there is precedent for AZ to enforce federal law.
Barbs don’t help, dude. But to your point, oh but I do. I have an extreme view of the supposed limited power of a single judge because I do believe strongly in our constitution. Judicial activism is my point and too many times the uppers won’t over rule the lowers, constitution or not. I’m sure you know that exists. Activism i.e. Marion Felzer, California, pal of Grey Davis.
Funny, I read the bill and couldn't find the part about how the bill is "cast solely in terms of hispanic illegals". Maybe you could point me to that part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.