Getting the facts now…..Judge blocks police from determining immigration status.
Stay tuned. This post will be updated.
Key Portions Blocked:
*Officers to to check immigraton status
*Immigrants to carry legal papers at all times
*Undocumented worders not allowed to seek and perform work
From MSNBC:
PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also put on hold 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. 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,” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
She ruled that 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.
Reminder: This is a temporary injunction.
“The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part 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.”
So I guess police can but don’t have to check people’s status? Kind of like what we have in PWC?
While we await explanation, here’s Wikipedia’s explanation of the provisions in SB 1070 :
U.S. federal law requires aliens 14 years old or older who are in the country for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government,[24] and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.[25] The Act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest”,[26] to determine a person’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.[9] A person arrested for violation of this section cannot be released without confirmation of the person’s legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail[27] (SB 1070 required a minimum fine of $500 for a first violation, and for a second violation a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum jail sentence of 6 months).[10] A person is “presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States” if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[9]
The Act also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting “the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law” and provides that any legal Arizona resident can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.[9][28] If the person who brings suit prevails, that person may be entitled to reimbursement of court costs and reasonable attorney fees.[9]
In addition, the Act makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which “blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.” Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory immobilization or impoundment. Moreover, for a person in violation of a criminal law, it is an additional offense to transport an alien “in furtherance” of the alien’s illegal presence in the U.S., to “conceal, harbor or shield” an alien, or to encourage or induce an alien to immigrate to the state, if the person “knows or recklessly disregards the fact” that the alien is in the U.S. illegally or that immigration would be illegal.[10] Violation is a class 1 misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal aliens are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender is subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien involved. The transportation provision includes exceptions for child protective services workers, and ambulance attendants and emergency medical technicians.
This has potential to be big, if ‘law enforcement’ can’t check immigration status what does that say about 287g? What does that say about local ‘law enforcement’ about any federal law?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/federal-judge-rules-arizona-immigration-law-dispute/
“U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has blocked the portion of the law that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested.
She also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime if someone fails to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial parts. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.”
So it sounds to me that Arizona police can arrest people on suspicion of being here illegally, and sort it out at the police station. And can proceed with punishing businesses who hire illegal labor. It sounds all in all okay to me even if it stays at this … and I believe that the four portions on hold will eventually be ruled perfectly constitutional.
I’m sure this story will be played up by “mainstream” media as a victory of activist courts over the declared will of the American people. And I look forward to the political backlash.
I would warn those who cheer this to hold off… if this goes to the 9th circus court and they uphold it it could change how law enforcement treats any and all federal laws.
The ruling – http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/28/azruling.pdf?hpt=T1
No one is cheering. It is an injuntion that puts a temporary hold on parts of the law going in to effect.
Thanks for posting the ruling, Rick.
Well, I see where we’re headed.
No way in hades are the American people going to tolerate some Comprehensive Amnesty deal … that won’t happen.
Meanwhile Obama is hamstrung by racial politics, he has to “put up a fight” for the illegals … so he’ll keep DOJ harassing any State or locality that tries to work the problem.
The whole issue is national and has prominance, and reached enough critical mass with the FOX News watchers of the world that it won’t go away. It’s going to fester and fester like a big political puss-ball and eventually explode all over one party or the other politically. Meanwhile, brace up for another year or two at least of the status quo (but with, I’m happy to say, more people paying attention).
I speed-read the ruling. I think the judge is a twit. I look forward to a Supreme Court hearing on this.
As for 287g…federal training was provided. Hours of it.
Interestingly enough, it sounds like questioning immigration status post arrest, for something like burglary, is very legal. Pulling someone over for a broken tail light and questioning their status is not. Thus, probable cause didn’t fly. (according to Trace Gallager on Faux News)
Anyone who was on the sidelines in this debate will now take a front row stand! This isn’t over, unless we want to hand the determination of how we run OUR country over to those who overrun OUR country. When the federal government sides with those illegally in the country over the wishes of the citizens you know there is going to be hell to pay at some point. Notice the protesters paraded the day BEFORE the law was to take affect. Tomorrow most will be on the way OUT of Arizona.
That would be my reading as well. So far, according to this one judge’s preliminary opinion.
Haven’t we seen this all before, right here in good ole PWC?
Toothless wonder comes to mind. 🙂
Obama is really jammed up on this issue. Which I find amusing. I look forward to his continued pain, suffering, and confusion.
Because he’s not a leader, nor an honorable public servant. If he were, there would be a way forward (enforce laws and implement a guest worker program).
once again an activist judge subverts the will of the american people
Actually Judge Bolton is respected by both Democrats and Republicans. But we established a long time ago that an activist judge is determined by whether or not we like his or her decision. 🙄
SB 1070 was totally defended by Governor Brewer and by passed the AG’s office. What does that tell you? (hint: Gov. Brewer wants to be re-elected.) The AG, Terry Goddard seems to be begging for immigration reform.
So what will the protesters bitch about if CIR took place, and now EVERYONE, not only those detained, must prove citizenship? How else could CIR be enforced? No one has yet to debate this, and yet I keep bringing it up. So now what’s the argument? I guess then the race card will be the only card left standing in their war against our sovereignty.
I guess that just about now Corey is loosing his deodorent.
Do you want to have to prove your citizenship, SA?
I don’t want to have to prove mine every time I turn around. It was a huge pain the few times I have had to do it.
Ivan, I am sure he is out on the streets hollering ‘Bring it on’ just to prove his machismo.
I am sure the young Republicans will get an earful from him tonight.
Gladly and proudly every chance I get if it means all other regardless of skin color must also!
You still haven’t addressed my question, because there isn’t an answer that would set well with you. How would CIR be enforced????????????????????????
It depends on what the CIR says. How can I comment on something that doesn’t exist.
Key Portions Blocked:
*Officers to to check immigraton status
*Immigrants to carry legal papers at all times
*Undocumented worders not allowed to seek and perform work
So, will officers be allowed to ask for ID? And if it comes up that they have none, then what?
Immigrants must carry legal papers at all time BECAUSE of federal law. So, can they now stop?
Undocumented workers means what? No ID? How can they get a job? Since it is illegal to hire illegal workers, according to the Feds, are the companies now liable?
What other federal laws should the AZ LEO groups stop enforcing? Drug laws, money laundering, smuggling? Wouldn’t want to “overload” federal authorities.
Arizona’s next logical course of action is to sue the Federal Government. Or perhaps private citizens in Arizona should. And force disclosure on what is going on.
Come on MH, you know what Obama stated about CIR and what it would entail. The illegals would pay a fine, go to the end of the immigration line, etc. etc.
Question is how would they determine who is in the country illegally in the first place? Really basic question, and it doesn’t even require a law degree to interpret.
For those who have all the answers this should be an easy one.
Actually, I don’t recall what Obama said about CIR. Furthermore, he wouldn’t be making the law.
Ask a specific question if you want my opinion. (which isn’t worth much.)
It would be difficult (CIR) if they didn’t come forward to be processed. Amnesty would make a whole lot more sense if we really want to know who is here. There might be many illegal immigrants that just don’t have the money to pay a fine so they could try to stay in an underground system. If there was amnesty, why wouldn’t everyone here illegally come forward?
From insidenova.com
@e
e –
I don’t know how “activist” Bolton is, but I do know that she was recommended by senator Kyl, hardly a liberal, progressive, and nominated by Pres. Clinton in 2000.
…this MIGHT be a stretch but I think it may be possible to use the Judges’ reasoning to revoke background checks for gun purchases. I think a case could be built that asking the government to run those BG checks unduly burdens the federales. 🙂
It’s just one more thing…….one……more……thing.
OK MH, here (again) is the specific question:
How would the federal government determine who is in the country illegally?
NO, amnesty is NOT the correct answer. We haven’t given amnesty to speeders since cars were invented, and we know we’ll never end speeding anymore than we’re going to end illegal immigration, but the law is still enforced.
I have no idea how it would work. I suppose people would be given a certain amount of time to apply for legal entry and then they would be given even more time to come up with fines and whatever other hoops they had to jump through. If they chose not to do those things then they would be required to leave. If they were caught after that then they should be jailed.
Who are they that you refer to? “But how do you know they’re illegal?” keeps ringing in my ears from the years of debating with those that support the border crossers. They aren’t going to do a damn thing on their own and you know it. So, again, the federal government must have a plan to weed out those who are here illegally, and it would be worse than the Arizona law and actually more invasive. Again we’ll face the same problems that Arizona is facing today only the protesters would be fighting the federal government instead.
What are you talking about? Many would say “activist” judges interferred with any sense of reasonable campaign finance when they ruled corporations should have the same rights as individuals. Where was your outrage regarding that case. Its interesting how activism is only applied to “democratic judges”. Pretty hypocrytical in my opinion.
O.K. I have to admit it, I was pulled over about two weeks ago for going a smidgen over the speed limit. I was on my way to GET my drivers licsense that I had accidentally left at the bank the previous day. Guess what, I did NOT get carted away by ICE for NOT having my ID. I wonder why? I guess I did not fit the “profile”, ruh roh, did I say profile? Of course there would be no “profiling” of people if they don’t have their ID on them, no, that would be unconstitutional. Guess what, I also go on walks WITHOUT my ID. Yes, lets move into a police state framework, THAT is truly an American ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No let’s not do that. Let’s let all of another country’s uneducated poor come in here, erode our ability to make living wages, and make our social safety net unsustainable. Let’s change our entire way of life so that nobody gets offended or inconvenienced.
Rick, Do you think the people that originally educated this country were Oxford graduates? Immigrants have notoriously been under-educated. Their kids came here and acquired an education.
SA, But have you answered, you don’t know how to tell if someone is illegal? You and I have no way on knowing unless that person tells us. If there were immigration reform, then people most certainly would tell on themselves if the carrot was to apply for legal residency. It would be stupid not to do so if the person had a clean record.
I was waiting for the “activist judge” BS to start. Over the years I’ve found an “activist judge” is the one that doesn’t agree with your point of view. If the term means a judge who acts against the will of the people (as legislation is supposedly passed by our representatives) then the 5 members of the Supreme Court who overturned the McCain-Feingold campaign finance rules and the DC firearms restrictions over the past year are activist judges as they rejected precedent to overturn the actions of legislative bodies. I’d be willing to bet that those who believe Judge Bolton is an activist judge probably believe Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito are brilliant jurists who display excellent judicial temperment. If you find fault with the rationale of her decison then let’s debate it, but to just dismiss it as the action of an activist judge is just plain lazy.
Folks, I would be more concerned with the political discourse in this country of which this blog is a microcrosm. We are on the brink if you did not feel it, regardless of how you feel with a particular topic. It feels like the 1960’s again with the polarization as it was further displayed in the 1970’s. If we do not get control of it, it is a time that I personally would not want to experience again.
Because someone has a different view than you do does not equate to enemy. Rhetoric needs to ratchet down from BOTH sides if we don’t want awful consequences.
It’s a straight down the middle Supremacy Clause decision. Predictable. Inevitable. It will not change significantly as it moves up the chain, if precedent means anything. Nothing exciting here. Move on. Just be glad we have a Constitution designed by an uncommon group of geniuses (genii?).
Scoring points is not victory.
@Morris Davis
Why I believe you have hit the nail squarely on the head Moe. That seems to be how conservatives and libertarians (whatever they really stand for) react to a judge who upholds the Constitution. Judge Bolton’s rationale will put tremendous pressure on the administration to get their act together. Rick Bentley is full of it when he says Americans won’t stand for amnesty–he is full of it. I believe most Americans just want to get it settled–period. Further, Bentley is one of these guys who likes to throw out generalizations about folks without any proof and when folks do that I think about a taxi driver who was a professor in his homeland or the techician who did an echocardiogram on my wife who was physician in his homeland, but didn’t want to deal with the licensing restrictions fostered by the AMA. I know of other instances where physicians were blocked because they weren’t educated here. So the idea that all immigrants are ignorant blobs is bullcrap.
George,
I agree. I know I’ve seen report after report and poll after poll that the majority of American’s support some kind of path to, if not citizenship, then at least legalization of those here illegally. Also, the idea that only the poorest of the poor are coming here is also a load of crap. Most of the people that come here have to have some kind of guts to make the journey in the first place. They want to improve their lot in life and have great motivation to achieve when they get here. Many of the “illegals” I know run their own businesses and are very successful even with limited education. It astounds me how they have the drive and courage to launch a business which many citizens would never even consider doing. Too much work! Also, I hate when people keep saying “none of them pay taxes”. That is by far the biggest load of crap peddled. If they get a paycheck, which all of them do except daylaborers, (who are a very small sliver of the population), they are paying the same taxes, at the same rates as everyone else who makes what they do. Almost half of all taxpayers paid no federal tax last year. If you work as a cashier in a grocery store and are an American citizen, you more than likely did not pay any federal tax last year either unless you were the manager or the pharmacist. The Republicans fight very hard to limit the amount of tax that the richest 2% of the population makes, but then doesn’t want to fund programs like the extension of unemployment benefits for the most vulnerable. Doesn’t make sense.
@Elena
>>>Many would say “activist” judges interferred with any sense of reasonable campaign finance when they ruled corporations should have the same rights as individuals.
I don’t understand the hubbub over corporations “not having the same rights as individuals”. They are legal entities formed by many individuals (or as few as one). Why shouldn’t they have the same rights?
Hypothetically, you and MH could form a corporation (Moonhowlings Inc. ?). Wouldn’t you want your corporation to have the same rights as you do individually?
REz, actually I think people here have been fairly well behaved on this subject today. At least people are talking and not throwing stuff at each other.
I expect things are fairly heated up in AZ. Or maybe not. This situation was very predictable, And it is an injunction. The PWC attorneys saw a flaw in probable cause. They knew they couldn’t afford cameras and probable clause so they took the safer route which enabled our local police to identify criminal illegal immigrants.
I don’t think Bolton is an activist judge at all. A bonehead? You bet. Not an activist. I do love the way libs talk about the constitution like they understand it. Always makes me laugh.
There are several high powered lawyers on this blog, Slow. You passed the bar?
They may have been well behaved. But my point was this country. Do you not remember our dark days not long ago? I see it happening again and most should be distressed.
Yeah, and Obama is a “Constitutional Scholar”.