~~ Ronald Reagan ~~
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Judge Blocks Key Provisions of Arizona Law SB1070
What I glean is that the judge issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing some provisions of the law without throwing the whole thing out. Of course, it will now go to the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit for a permanent ruling.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
You can read the ruling HERE.
RELATED:
You know, if you want to hold your own citizenship cheap, that’s fine. But when you start holding others’ cheap, including those who’ve immigrated legally, then I’ve got a problem with you.
UPDATE: Spoke to a border town law enforcement official. Nothing in the ruling prohibits them from asking for immigration status, only that it’s not required. They plan on asking when suspicious of status.
Additionally Bolton’s ruling is illegal. No matter what anyone says officers can still arrest immigrants for failing to carry immigration papers.
Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1304e requires that “every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.” Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days.All local law enforcement officers throughout the US can enforce this law as they can any other federal law in the performance of their duties. Judge Bolten’s ruling should be vacated on this point immediately, it’s in error.
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)......
Read much more
Is everyone really confused yet, no, well read this:
Posted by Sara
on 07/28/2010 at 12:20 PM in Immigration - Legal -
(0) Post Your Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
