Reply With Quote
Good news?
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 undo ented workers to solicit employment in public places.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that those 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 immigraiton statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a cons utionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
Click image to see photos of immigration debate
AFP
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.
The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.
It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
linky...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration
Good news?
I pulled a darrins minus the youtube video.
I'm not surprised on the "loitering" and "blocking streets" provisions. That just looked like an excuse to make an arrest and I didn't think that would survive.
Same with having to carry proof.
At the end of the day I still think/hope that SCOTUS will rule that State/Locals turning suspected undo ented people over to ICE for determination of immigration status is not illegal.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 07-28-2010 at 02:02 PM.
I hope they make the legal bill public for what this litigation is going to cost.
So now it's Magic Negro's fault for both violating the Cons ution and enforcing the Cons ution.
No stupid, racist law, no fed suit.
This one is obviously going to the SCOTUS.
I admit I'm really surprised and disappointed. I knew it would end up at the SCOTUS anyway, but she really seemed like a judge that would try to follow the law and not fold to the political pressure.
Putting my feelings aside,that you're an idiot, the SCOTUS will get the case and probably decide in AZ favor. We have an activist court now and they will find in AZ's favor..then you will be able to gloat
I always knew that no matter what she ruled the 9th would side with Holder.
Man, Obama got PWNED! LOLMAFOROTFCOPTER
CC backtracking faster than a man with his shoes on backwards.
LOL You're so full of .
Don't trip over yourself as you back pedal.
Check all my posts on this subject head. I ALWAYS said the 9th would back Holders interpretation.
clinton appointed judge
Here ya go head. I already said I predicted Arizona wrong.
07-07-2010, 10:20 AM #35
CosmicCowboy
Mr. John Wayne
Team: San Antonio Spurs
SpursTalk Cash: $105950
Post Count: 16,441
Re: Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law
Holder will definitely lose at the first trial simply because his legal argument is so vapid and weak. This whole charade is political and not legal. Unfortunately, however, he may prevail on the first appeal. Arizona falls in the 9th District which is notorious for writing law instead of ruling on law...Then, the lower court decision will finally be confirmed when it goes to the Supreme Court.
My understanding is the provision she blocked is still being reviewed. She didn't say the law was illegal, but is still reviewing that part. It may still happen, but just be on hold.
Face-off in Arizona after judge blocks parts of immigration law:
Put on hold...The key parts of the law put on hold required police to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped who they suspected of being in the country illegally, and required legal immigrants to carry proof of residency.
Not deemed illegal!
actually it would not be deemed illegal
I'm not sure that this one is necessarily destined for the Supreme Court. It's politically significant and certainly a high-profile case, but I'm not sure that there are going to be any wide-ranging legal issues in this case that will warrant Supreme Court review. We'll see.
And I'd say that the ruling doesn't necessarily forecast how the district court will ultimately rule on the legal challenges to the statute. In considering this sort of injunctive relief with respect to the enforcement of challenged laws, courts are usually obligated to maintain the status quo when asked. That's all that's happened here. It may still be that the district court will strike down those provisions, but I wouldn't read much into the fact that the stay of enforcement was granted.
How do you reach the conclusion that the SC is an activist court? What makes their decisions any more activist than the AZ judge reaching the conclusion that it did today?
I personally think the judge knows there is no reason to stop the law, but is looking for a way to do so.
the law is ridiculous and it it just a way for that of governor to make some headlines. Even some of the AZ Sheriff's say they already do what the law says and the border is safer than ever.
the arizona governor is so damn ugly, she should be deported
You ain't kidding. Looks like Quato in a wig and a pant-suit.the arizona governor is so damn ugly, she should be deported
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
