Posted on 07/30/2010 7:01:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Judge Susan Bolton has to get credit for her cheekiness. She took a matter of profound national concern and injected an element of hilarity into it.
As gloriously ridiculous as a classic Monty Python skit, the federal judge’s decision blocking Arizona’s immigration law is an appropriate first volley in the legal war over the law. If our immigration system is to be defined by a judicially sanctioned lawlessness, we might as well dispense with the pretense.
Acting in keeping with federal law, court precedent, and a Department of Justice legal memorandum (not to mention common sense), Arizona said its law-enforcement officers would henceforth check the legal status of suspected illegal immigrants during the course of a lawful stop or arrest. To conclude that the law likely will be struck down for “preempting” federal regulations, Judge Bolton had to engage in complicated judicial gymnastics, which she nailed with all the skill of a Mary Lou Retton in robes.
Taking her cues from the Obama administration’s suit against the law, Judge Bolton worried that too many legal aliens would be caught up in Arizona’s dragnet. Of course, these aliens are already required by federal law to carry proof of their legal status. But let’s put that aside (as Judge Bolton does). She claims that too many legal aliens without ready access to documents proving their lawful entry into the U.S. will be put at risk, including visitors from visa-waiver countries.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that visitors from countries like Norway and Australia are flooding into the border areas of Arizona. And let’s assume they engage in recklessly illegal conduct, daring cops to stop and arrest them. And let’s assume they exhibit all the behaviors associated with illegal immigrants. How could such a visitor escape the dreaded fate awaiting him when an officer asks about his legal status? Perhaps by producing a passport stamped with the duration of his stay, possessed by every visitor from a visa-waiver country?
Judge Bolton piles speculation atop implausible readings of the law. Say a legal alien is arrested and his release is delayed by a check on his status. Let’s put aside (as Judge Bolton does) that on average it takes the staff manning the federal database set up for such checks 70 minutes to get to an inquiry and a mere 11 minutes to answer it. Judge Bolton declares that any delay amounts to exposing legal aliens to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.”
This is a tautology dressed up with scare words. It’s impossible as a matter of definition to get arrested without experiencing “police surveillance.” As for “inquisitorial practices,” blogger William A. Jacobson notes that “states already routinely run searches for a variety of statuses, including outstanding warrants, child support orders and non-immigration identity checks. Each of these checks potentially could delay release of an innocent person.”
When states want to check on someone’s immigration status, they do it with the aforementioned federal database. As a matter of law, the outfit running it must respond to all inquiries “seeking to verify or ascertain citizenship or immigration status . . . for any purpose authorized by law.” In writing this sweeping requirement, Congress did not make an exception for requests emanating from Arizona.
Too bad, says Judge Bolton. If the state finds too many suspected illegal immigrants, it might overburden the system. Let’s put aside (as Judge Bolton does) that the system already gets 1 million inquiries a year, that it has a theoretical capacity to process 1.5 million and that, as of now, Arizona only makes 80,000 inquiries annually, meaning even a drastic increase could be accommodated. If the federal government fears a surge from Arizona, couldn’t it add some positions to the 153 staffers currently assigned to the database? Think of it as stimulus.
But never mind. With emotions running high over the Arizona law, some comic relief is always welcome. Judge Bolton has provided it.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review
The worst aspect of judicial activism is the arrogant belief that they can foretell all possible outcomes.
Invalidating a law because ‘of the burden it might place on law enforcement’ is madness. Should we repeal laws against rape, murder and robbery in case the police break a sweat?
I don’t see why the State of Arizona doesn’t sue the Federal government for failing to uphold there own law regarding illegals in Arizona.
_____________________________
Please help Texas watch her borders.
14 live cameras. Watch live and report to border patrol. Night cams in operation.
http://www.blueservo.net/
.
bump
I am not disposed to find political hacks in robes as funny. It must be my reptillian brain that says such people should be drag into the courtyard and hanged.
Basically, she invalidates the state law because it would cause the Feds to become too efficient at deporting illegal aliens. BooHoo! There would be so much extra work if all the state agencies suddenly got busy at clearing up this problem. Mass deportation might hurt somebody’s feelings!
This judge really screwed herself (along with AZ). She acknowledged all of AZ's points of law and then trumped them with an idiotic concern over police ineptitude. Hey judge, you let these guys carry guns and shoot at presumably bad guys. If they are so inept, shouldn't they also lose the weaponry? Her line of reasoning is as holey as Swiss cheese, but it smells like li[m]burger.
Hilarious? Some people have a sick sense of humor.
Brewer is considering just that.
We in Arizona are presuming that Susie Bolton has a law degree.
BA and JD from the University of Iowa.
What a disgrace...
RE: We in Arizona are presuming that Susie Bolton has a law degree.
From Wikipedia :
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Bolton received a B.A. from the University of Iowa in 1973 and a J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1975.
She was a law clerk for Judge Laurance T. Wren of the Arizona Court of Appeals from 1975 to 1977. She was then in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona, from 1977 to 1989.
Bolton’s judicial service began on the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County, where she served from 1989 to 2000. On July 21, 2000, based upon the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona, Bolton was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a District Court seat vacated by Robert C. Broomfield. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 3, 2000, and received her commission on October 13, 2000.
She is registered as a political independent.
Not all that funny. But I see no reason why the cops should be banned from asking for papers. Its what happens next that is the real issue. And if the feds are slow to respond then thsats obamas fault not arizonas.
Susan Bolton’s ruling speaks of the same attitude another woman had some 200+ years ago who said, “Let them eat cake!”.
Totally agree. This is along the same lines as this article.
It's much too much work.
The government is too busy making up fictitious ideas: cap n’ trade, “saving or creating” jobs, pretending there is racism at the TEA Parties and pretending there is none at the polls in PA.
It's ironic that they never worry about the burdens they put on the taxpayers.....
People should ask and demand an answer of the administration: if you can’t handle one million legal-status inquiries per year, then how will you enforce your health care mandate on 300 million Americans?
Ping!
Rich Lowry weighs in...
Our Republic has slowly morphed into a Judicial Tyranny.
“no police official or elected official can tell the police officer that you cannot enforce immigration laws,”
MyFox Phoenix
Sheriff Joe
***
Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff’s Head
$1M offered for Arpaio, $1K to join cartel
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010
* This judge really screwed herself (along with AZ). She acknowledged all of AZ’s points of law and then trumped them with an idiotic concern over police ineptitude. Hey judge, you let these guys carry guns and shoot at presumably bad guys. If they are so inept, shouldn’t they also lose the weaponry? Her line of reasoning is as holey as Swiss cheese, but it smells like li[m]burger. *
I’ve heard of a lot of Arizona police officers on the side of America that are ready to roll up their sleeves and send the illegal invaders back home.
If there really are a lot of lazy AZ police (which I don’t believe)then Jan Brewer might deputize 20 or 30 thousand people from all around the country to come out and help secure the border.
I propose a simple solution: Arizona should ignore the Judge’s pronouncements and do whatever it needs to do to protect the citizenry under the authority of the Police Power. It is a solution with which the founding fathers were very familiar. The ruling is so preposterous and so onerous that no law-abiding person with an ounce of common sense, self-respect and gumption should feel obligated to obey it.
(Yahoo post by ML)The Cost of “Illegal” Immigrants
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631 .00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $280.00 per family member/ month federal CASHAID for four family members. Jose Illegal has $ 43,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinking’ insurance!” and still has $ 43,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $44,640 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month, ”actually” Jose illegal doesn’t pay for most utilities in many states as he gets county assistance to pay the bills and his late fees”
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work. “And pays a higher tax rate if he earns above a certain amount”
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now?
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.