The Clinton appointee Judge has blocked certain sections of the Arizona law from going into effect until they can be heard through the courts:
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.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
Full motion here:
It appears the key question that has given the Fed’s a temporary victory was that the law as written would require law enforcement to check immigration status on everyone arrested or held, not just those with “reasonable suspicion” of being illegal immigrants.
And that would create a burden on both LE and legal immigrants alike.
For these reasons, the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.
~~~In combination with the impermissible burden this provision will place on lawfully-present aliens, the burden on federal resources and priorities also leads to an inference of preemption. Therefore, for the purposes of preliminary injunction analysis, the Court concludes that the United States has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its challenge to the first sentence of Section 2(B). Section 2(B) in its entirety is likely preempted by federal law.
So the divert resources from the fed’s argument won the day….for now. Bolton obviously believes the DOJ has a case.
We shall see.
See author page
This goes all the way to SCOTUS, and Roberts pounds Obama.
Saw this posted today in the comments section of an article about illegal immigration and the Bolton decision:
If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard
labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from
again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy
and your fate will be sealed.
If you cross the Mexican borders illegally you will jailed for two years.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political
prison to rot.
If you cross the United States border illegally you get:
1 – A job
2 – A driver’s license
3 – A Social Security card
4 – Welfare
5 – Food stamps
6 – Credit cards
7 – Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house
8 – Free education
9 – Free health care
10 – A lobbyist in Washington
11 – Billions of dollars in public documents printed in your language
12 – Millions of servicemen and women who are willing to – and do – die
for your right to the ways and means of our constitution
13 – And the right to carry the flag of your country – the one you walked
out on – while you call America racist and protest that you don’t get
enough respect.
IF YOU AGREE, COPY AND RE-POST.
@DrJohn:
I have no doubt that this will end up in the Supreme Court. The problem is when. These things could take years. Personally, I wish to rid the country from this cancerous regime much sooner than what reliance on the court system will provide. Looking forward to November of this year, and November of 2012. Once again, as on a daily basis, I find myself angered by the boobs who voted for this menace.
This judge just took the enforcement of the law out of the law. With a stroke of a pen she has turned Arizona into a sanctuary state. The feds will not enforce their immigration laws, Arizone cannot enforce their law, can anarchy be far off. She also said that immigrants do not need to carry ID or green cards, that is contrary to federal law, but who cares they were not enforcing that one either. Thomas Jefferson said it best “when injustice becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty.”
Show of hands……
Who’s surprised?
That’s what I thought.
From The Corner
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyZmVkMmUzYWIxYTAzY2QxOTA0ZDg5OWQyYzg1MzQ=
Arizona Immigration Decision [Andy McCarthy]
On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.
In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.
The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.
Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like “a thing apart.”
The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.”
However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.
Something ate my preemptive advice not to hyperventilate yet, so I’ll try again:
The legislature is on break now until September. They did not make the law effective until tomorrow. Why would they do that? Because they knew there would be court challenges and it would take until about now to even have a clue. Consequently, they know now a lot more about the legal opposition and, there are no people hanging around waiting to sue for being busted by a bad law. It’s like making them tip their hand and getting advice from the judge.
Of COURSE it was always going to be argued and appealed all the way. Every one of our laws vis-a-vis immigration has been. Before this one even gets to a full court hearing, I predict the legislature will be back in session with a replacement that will be harder to shoot down.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Babeu in Pinal County needs better weapons to go against smugglers. He has shotguns and they have AK-47s. That would be a worthy effort to direct energy towards.
“A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it”
Never knew Ben Franklin was a prophet.
>>In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.>>
Hey…it beats “Immigration Reform” all to heck!!
Now…on the bright side, maybe – just maybe – it will throw the “Immigration Reform” issue onto the back burner until we get a more conservative Congress into office, and – with any luck – a Conservative president into office.
@Indy Voter:
You have hit on a winning campaign strategy. The Gop candidates should bring this travesty and others up often in 2012. We should all of us remember those who brought us to this end come November.
Brewer needs to get with Oklahoma and take a look at OK HB1804 that was passed in 2007. Between what she has now and if Arizona should pass a bill similar to 1804 would be enough to keep illegals somewhat at bay. The Oklahoma law imposes strict penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. It also forbids the state to issue drivers licenses or pay social welfare benefits to illegal aliens or their families, and empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. When Oklahoma passed this law, illegals left the state in droves as they knew they couldn’t get employment. Worst case scenerio, ignore the judge and do what you gotta do as it is the right thing to do for Arizona.
“This judge just took the enforcement of the law out of the law. With a stroke of a pen she has turned Arizona into a sanctuary state.”
The judge has put a hold on parts of the new Arizona law in accordance with normal judicial process. She’s dealing with the legal questions that have formally arisen exactly as she is required to.
Nothing prevents Arizona from enforcing the part of the law that cracks down on illegal hiring by employers. Remove that obvious incentive to illegal immigration and see what happens.
I’m assuming, of course, that this is actually all about the state’s illegal immigration problem and how to most effectively mitigate it, rather than being a convenient, high-profile political issue for republicans to take advantage of in an election year.
This judge questioned the Justice Dept. harshly over their pre-emption based suit against the AZ law, all but ridiculed them. And then – then – she turned around and did this. No legal principle is at stake here, just a judge twisting logic like a pretzel to give something to her political masters. It’s crooked.
Thomas Jefferson said it best “when injustice becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty.”
Savage24….
If one man knew what the hell he was talking about, it was Thomas Jefferson….
I’m thinking the Tree of Liberty is getting a bit dry these days….
If you see a post of mine on this a while back I predicted this would happen. ANYONE who thinks a CLINTON appointed judge would come to any other conclusion is nuts.
Dems make it a point to pick those that march in ideological lockstep with them.
Ultimately we will prevail, but it will take time and the SCOTUS to bring that about.
A quote from a Fox news article:
“The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money,” the ruling said.
The below quote makes no sense!
“Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.”
What does in the public interest mean? What about public opinion? This makes absolute NO sense! This is a total contradiction. If Arizona is following the federal laws of the government… ????
I’m seriously at a loss for words. I never thought that the court would NOT follow the constitution.
readysetgo2012, now you know why Clinton picked her. Rule of law need not apply when a liberal is involved.