Breaking: Judge blocks parts of AZ immigration law; Update: Pre-emption wins, for now

posted at 1:31 pm on July 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Federal judge Susan Bolton has issued a temporary restraining order against the most controversial portions of the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, while keeping much of it in place.  The requirement for police to check immigration status has been suspended, however, pending a full review by the court at a later date:

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.

A temporary injunction gets put into place when a judge thinks that a court review has some likelihood of overturning a law in a full hearing.  That doesn’t amount to a decision on the merits, but it does indicate that Bolton thinks the Department of Justice can make a case for blocking the law.

What will be interesting will be to see whether this impacts public opinion.  The Obama administration has taken a beating in the polls on this issue, with poll after poll showing majorities of Americans supporting the Arizona law.  A temporary injunction on portions of the bill may get some people rethinking the issue, but I’d be surprised if there was any substantial movement. If a judge later rules against the law after a full hearing, it might change feelings about the law specifically, but probably not about enforcement.

I’d also expect the White House to claim this as vindication, but only because they have been utterly tone-deaf on this issue for the last three months.  They should wait on the I-told-you-so for the full hearing.

Update: This point seems key.  On page 14, Bolton says 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.  That would create a huge burden on both law enforcement and on legal immigrants, Bolton writes.

Also, on page 17, Bolton appears to buy the argument that a large influx of referrals from Arizona to the ICE would have the effect of pre-empting federal policies on national security and immigration:

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.

And again on pages 20-21:

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.

Basically, Bolton seems to feel that the DoJ will win in court on these issues, or at least has a strong case.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

(BTW- I don’t know if that Cr66 person claims to be working a lawyer or paralegal, but if he/she does, they would know what Pacer is. If a law student, maybe not.)

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Crr666= Jack McCoy

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM

It occurs to me as I think about this that AZ is being ‘punished’ by this woman. It’s as if she has said something to the effect of: “OK you pushy Arizonans, I’ll get you. I make a ruling that will make things worse and you’ll be sorry”. Every state and every governor and every voter in this country should take a long hard look at this ruling, take a deep breath and get RID of this adminstration and these sorts of judges however long it takes.

jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I think it’s somewhat silly to say a law shouldn’t be implemented because it would overtax the resources of those who are required by law to enforce those laws.

Looking at the overcrowded prison system, one could make the same argument that we shouldn’t be convicting criminals because the system is overtaxed.

It’s asinine.

I think a court order mandating the government to increase their resources for enforcement would be more appropriate.

ButterflyDragon on July 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Public link to the order: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0729sb1070-bolton-ruling.pdf

Firefly_76 on July 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Pacer is public access to court electronic records; has case and docket information for all federal courts…you loser. Learn it, love it: http://www.pacer.gov/

Firefly_76 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM
I never used that at my federal courthouse, although all the pleadings were electronically filed. We used a system where I had my own login, and to my knowledge, the site we used wasn’t public.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

You work in a federal courthouse, huh? Are you working now? If not, you’re stealing our money.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Hey, here’s an idea….why don’t you just garner a lot of public support for your immigration policy preferences, then elect people to Congress who agree with you. Then….your Congress can change federal law! What a concept!

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

crr6,

Your snark doesn’t seem to make sense in light of your other arguments. Didn’t you just say that the federal law already does this? What, exactly, do you think people are saying needs to be changed w/r/t the Fed law (and not its enforcement)?

It almost seems like you’re celebrating the fact that this judge is limiting AZ’s ability to enforce the existing law (e.g. carrying papers at all times), which would imply that she’s the one “changing” the law’s requirement — at least in practice (e.g. it’s still the law, but it’s not to be enforced)

You’re retort here actually seems to re-enfocrce the idea that places the judge squarely in “activist” territory per your own reprimand to go through the legislative branch to handle legislative changes.

What am I missing?

BlueCollarAstronaut on July 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Your “system” is called ECF, btw. Figure out what that means, crr6.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM

It’s awesome to watch bigots and other social-offenders spin themselves away from the obvious intent of their most brazen-remarks. You know what he meant by “civil war.” I know what you mean by ignoring that.

You’re a nut.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

If rejecting “civil war” is nutty, then I’m your almond.

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Your selective outrage about “civil war” or “race war” never seem to include Obama’s good friend,campaign promoter,and business partner Bill Ayers.

If associating with people who want to overthrow the government and kill people based on the color of their skin is a definite sign of bigotry,racism,and “social offenders”…..then look no further than your man in the White House.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM

In the outline of state role in fed law below I do not see a prevention of other arrests. If you want preemption put it in plain words in the law.

8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c reads:

(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who–

(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and

(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

PrezHussein on July 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

So, the Federal government doesn’t want anybody else to enforce the law and defend our national security which it has Constitutionally sworn to uphold, but which it steadfastly refuses to do?

That’s criminal in itself.

profitsbeard on July 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

The President may already know, this was a mistake.

Speakup on July 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM

my understanding is the portion of the law that makes sanctuary cities illegal stands, also that which allows citizens to SUE the municipality for damages if they fail o enforce immigration laws on the books today.

So Mayor Phil Gordon jackaxx in Phoenix will get sued if an illegal they let go harms a citizen. something to keep in mind sanctuary cities.

ginaswo on July 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Your “system” is called ECF, btw.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Yep, that’s it. I stopped my internship about a month ago, but I remember now. I’d always cite to a pleading by saying (ECF DCKT # x). We definitely never used “Pacer”.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM

The PACER Case Locator is a national index for U.S. District, Bankruptcy, and Appellate courts. A small subset of information from each case is transferred to the PACER Case Locator server each night. The system serves as a locator index for PACER. You may conduct nationwide searches to determine whether or not a party is involved in federal litigation.

http://www.pacer.gov

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Andy McCarthy weighs in:

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…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.
.
.
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.”

Weight of Glory on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

You work in a federal courthouse, huh? Are you working now? If not, you’re stealing our money.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

No, I’d never post here from work, obviously.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

What other choice is there but taking that path?

Holger on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I don’t know. But we have the government that the majority of voters elected. We have been electing these people for decades and apparently we will continue to do so (Reid ahead in the polls in NV) That is our biggest problem. A civil war will not fix that. We have to educate the electorate or continue the path to banana republic. No easy task, but after the immediate objective of kicking these clowns out of office in November we have to work seriously at retaking the institutions of education and the media from the liberals. The really is we have been voting ourselves out of liberty for decades, and that has to change.

neuquenguy on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

You file docs with ECF. They are publicly available via PACER. Jesus.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

1) Citizens United. The court overturned federal election law passed by democratically elected representatives.
crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM

So, there’s no granular difference between a ruling on the constitutionality of a given law based on the plain language of the constitution, and, say, the finding of “penumbras” within that constitution to justify abortion?

TexasDan on July 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

So, the Federal government doesn’t want anybody else to enforce the law and defend our national security which it has Constitutionally sworn to uphold, but which it steadfastly refuses to do?

That’s criminal in itself.

profitsbeard on July 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Rallying cry for November:

Republicans want to enforce the laws
Democrats Don’t
Who will you vote for in November?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Sure the safety of our country is necessary but, more importantly, will the increased Hispanic voter turnout be able to make up for the loss of college kids who have seen through the “Change” advertising blitz and are sitting out the upcoming election?
- (D) politicians everywhere

rogerb on July 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM

So Mayor Phil Gordon jackaxx in Phoenix will get sued if an illegal they let go harms a citizen. something to keep in mind sanctuary cities.

ginaswo on July 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM

IIRC , the illegal who killed the 3 Bologna men in San Fransisco was shielded all his criminal life repeatedly, by the city and mayor, but they were not held responsible for their murders because they had such provision in the sanctuary law they enforced in SF.

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM

I think it’s somewhat silly to say a law shouldn’t be implemented because it would overtax the resources of those who are required by law to enforce those laws.

Looking at the overcrowded prison system, one could make the same argument that we shouldn’t be convicting criminals because the system is overtaxed.

It’s asinine.

I think a court order mandating the government to increase their resources for enforcement would be more appropriate.

ButterflyDragon on July 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Exactly. How can she claim that this creates an undue burden on the Feds, and forces their hand vis-a-vis the allocation of resources, and simultaneously ignore that she’s making a not-so-tacit admission that a)there’s a huge problem and b) it’s all on Arizona right now?

TexasDan on July 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Or, to wit, Your Mother Smells of Elderberries.

Skywise on July 28, 2010 at 3:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7qxqvjTbu0

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!!!

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Such good news for Bammie that he might take yet another vacation this month.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2010 at 3:26 PM

(BTW- I don’t know if that Cr66 person claims to be working a lawyer or paralegal, but if he/she does, they would know what Pacer is. If a law student, maybe not.)

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM
She is a law student.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

She also claims to be/have been an intern for a federal judge.

SuzyQAZ on July 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

You work in a federal courthouse, huh? Are you working now? If not, you’re stealing our money.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Interesting premise!! Seemed to put him(or her)on the defensive very quickly. Keep up the good work. I think you’ve hit on something here.

jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

From the description of Judge Bolton’s opinion in Ed Morrissey’s summary above, the Judge’s reasoning in enjoining portions strikes me on first consideration as strained. The lawsuit is a facial attack by the DOJ on the Arizona statute, but the Judge is relying upon speculative future effects of the law in saying, as she must to justify the preliminary injunction, that the DOJ has a likelihood of success on the merits.

Phil Byler on July 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

intern for a federal judge

i.e. an asswipe.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

And the Democrats will answer “By cutting off the demand the supply stops coming”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/26/politics/washingtonpost/main6715205.shtml

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Can this judge be voted out of office as Rose Bird was in California? Or are things different with this judge? I never have understood why some judges are voted on and some aren’t.

Rose on July 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM

but the Judge is relying upon speculative future effects of the law in saying, as she must to justify the preliminary injunction, that the DOJ has a likelihood of success on the merits.

Phil Byler on July 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

And at the same time ignoring the effect of those speculative results upon the state.

TexasDan on July 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Count it!

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Blind squirrel. Nut.

stvnscott on July 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM

She is a law student.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Too bad.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/07/summer-associates.html

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 3:32 PM

On page 14, Bolton says 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.

WTF? Check everyone, and they are persecuting.

If cops require reasonable suspicion to check, then they are discriminating!!!

Granted, the good logical kind of discriminating, but this is the most farcical “Catch-22″ I’ve seen in some time.
Shouldn’t the net be broad enough to protect cops from being sued for hurting feelings, by running all ID checks through ICE?

Maquis on July 28, 2010 at 3:33 PM

My sister and her husband life long Democrats (Maryland) just told me that they are voting a straight Republican ticket in November no matter who the candidates are and so are their friends. I hope this country is waking up.

SANTA on July 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM

She just said the state authorities can’t require illegals to carry papers on them. The feds still can, and do.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

No, it’s worse than that. The portion of the US argument she cites is “First, the United States argues that this provision “necessarily places lawfully present
aliens (and even U.S. citizens) in continual jeopardy of having to demonstrate their lawful status to non-federal officials.”” and “all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state
authorities”.

This is an implication that states do not have ANY authority to validate US citizenship. If they can’t do it for a suspected crime, under what circumstances is it permissible for state authorities to validate citizenship?

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:36 PM

the Judge’s reasoning in enjoining portions strikes me on first consideration as strained.

A clearly worded statute must be construed without forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application. Avoid strained interpretations.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I hope this country is waking up.

SANTA on July 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Well the alarm clock is certainly ringing…

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Suggesting people be branded for a misdemeanor is not consistent with what America really stands for in my opinion.
Recent stories have shown that the current admin is deporting more people than under the last admin. Reason is due to holding businesses more accountable for hiring illegal workers. But you won’t acknowledge that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

What planet are you living on? We have millions and millions of illegals here. America stands for ignoring the rule of law? Go after business and close the border. Allow local and state law enforcement to check immigration status.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:39 PM

This judge has found a good underpinning in the “complement” language in Hines. However, she is conflating that judicial finding with a “congressional intent” argument. In effect she is defining congressional intent through SCOTUS precedent.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:40 PM

My sister and her husband life long Democrats (Maryland) just told me that they are voting a straight Republican ticket in November no matter who the candidates are and so are their friends. I hope this country is waking up.

SANTA on July 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Good news. I wish everyone would just vote pro-America. That’s certainly not the democrats.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Obama doesn’t want to enforce the law because adding more dependents to the rolls will benefit the Democrats in the short term and further the Cloward-Piven strategy in the long term.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM

the impermissible burden this provision will place on lawfully-present aliens

This is also crap. What, exactly, is “impermissible” about the requirements of this law?

Carry your ID. Show it if you get arrested.

I guess every vagrancy law in the country is putting “impermissible” burdens on the average citizen.

TexasDan on July 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM

And the Democrats will answer “By cutting off the demand the supply stops coming”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/26/politics/washingtonpost/main6715205.shtml

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Who cares? 10% above Bush? At that rate all of Mexico will be in the US in a decade. Close the border. Close the border. Close the border. Close the border. Close the border. Close the border. Close the border.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Ice cream shops all over the state are relieved…

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM

(BTW- I don’t know if that Cr66 person claims to be working a lawyer or paralegal, but if he/she does, they would know what Pacer is. If a law student, maybe not.)

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

She is a law student.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Or at least she plays one here on HA.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM

necessarily places lawfully present aliens (and even U.S. citizens) in continual jeopardy of having to demonstrate their lawful status to non-federal officials
Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Does she mean legal jeopardy? How am I in legal jeopardy if I am required to demonstrate my citizenship? If I am a citizen or legal resident and I show my papers, no problem. If I am not then my lack of papers should be prima facie evidence of my crime. The crime is being here illegally OR not carrying papers if you are here legally.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Can this judge be voted out of office as Rose Bird was in California? Or are things different with this judge? I never have understood why some judges are voted on and some aren’t.

Rose on July 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Depends on the state/federal constitution.

Federal district court and appeals judges, as with SCOTUS, are appointed for life, and can only be removed by impeachment by Congress. Bankruptcy judges and federal magistrates are appointed for fixed terms.

Impeachment is what happened to former federal judge Alcee Hastings. Of course, he went on to be elected to Congress…

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM

A theoretical question here….can a state (or any entity) force an obligation on a third party that it doesn’t have any authority over itself?

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I’d never post here from work, obviously.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

LOL, a few months ago you were bragging about posting here while you were sitting in law class.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM

You are ignoring the facts in the article. Illegals are being deported and the number of illegals coming in has slowed. Are you suggesting they should discontinue efforts that are showing tangible results?

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

It would be funny if a cop saw Bolton driving home, and if she just glided through a STOP sign, he’d pull her over and ask for ID.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

A theoretical question here….can a state (or any entity) force an obligation on a third party that it doesn’t have any authority over itself?

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Liberals have tried to so for decades. Last year Massachusetts tried to force its citizens to pay it sales taxes for car tires they bought here in New Hampshire. Used the “Commerce Clause” as their rationale.

They were laughed out of court.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM

It would be funny if a cop saw Bolton driving home, and if she just glided through a STOP sign, he’d pull her over and ask for ID.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

I read that part of her injunction (where she cites the feds assertion that “citizens are not required to carry identification”…..dang near fell out of my chair.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM

A theoretical question here….can a state (or any entity) force an obligation on a third party that it doesn’t have any authority over itself?

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM

You mean like the individual mandate in ObamaCare? Guess we will find out after the court rules in the Virginia lawsuit.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM

My sister and her husband life long Democrats (Maryland) just told me that they are voting a straight Republican ticket in November no matter who the candidates are and so are their friends. I hope this country is waking up.

SANTA on July 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Exactly…..

While Obama’s liberal base cheers this as some major victory(of course this still has a ways to go)…..

Everybody in America knows that we have a serious problem with illegal immigration at the Mexican boarder…….
……and now they know that the democrats not only are failing to solve this problem….they are supporting it.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 3:52 PM

It would be funny if a cop saw Bolton driving home, and if she just glided through a STOP sign, he’d pull her over and ask for ID.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

And if she had no ID, she could be charged with misdemeanor failure to show ID and arrested. Once arrested, she could be run through ICE to determine her residency status.

Lots of ways to skin that cat.

azkenreid on July 28, 2010 at 3:52 PM

You mean like the individual mandate in ObamaCare? Guess we will find out after the court rules in the Virginia lawsuit.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Not quite. I mean how, per this injunction, the state is prohibited from checking immigration status but is allowed to penalize employers who DON’T verify that status. It is logically impossible for a state to enforce a law that it cannot independently verify.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:57 PM

I read that part of her injunction (where she cites the feds assertion that “citizens are not required to carry identification”…..dang near fell out of my chair.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM

So the next time TSA asks for my id at the airport, I can still board the plane regardless of whether or not I show them my id, right?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:57 PM

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM

You are ignoring the facts in the article. Illegals are being deported and the number of illegals coming in has slowed. Are you suggesting they should discontinue efforts that are showing tangible results?

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

This “fact” in the article shows how much smoke and mirrors is going on here:

Morton said the 400,000 people expected to be deported this year — either physically removed or allowed to leave on their own power – represent the maximum the overburdened processing, detention and immigration court system can handle.

Anybody with common sense knows that people who busted their butts to come here illegally are not going to “leave on their own power”……

….and I have a serious credibility problem with an administration who claims job creation from a stimulus that has produced a “loss” of almost 3 million jobs since it’s signing and touts a Health Care Bill that is supposedly “deficit neutral” when in fact it adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

As usual with the Obama administration…..the truth is in the small print….not the “headline” or from what he “said”.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Can you say figleaf?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM

So the next time TSA asks for my id at the airport, I can still board the plane regardless of whether or not I show them my id, right?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:57 PM

lol, I know what you mean, but that is a little different since they are federal authorities, and you are being required to utilize ID for a very specific purpose. However, suppose you were at an airport dropping off the hubby for a flight and getting asked to step in for an interview by TSA would be a VERY interesting event.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

So the next time TSA asks for my id at the airport, I can still board the plane regardless of whether or not I show them my id, right?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Thats exactly what I thought when I read this woman’s contempt for the people of AZ.
The next time I am at an airport, maybe I’ll refuse to show ID and then threaten to sue TSA, and still get on the flight. Afterall its not about the safety of other passengers or the rule of law , its about my feelings.

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

You are ignoring the facts in the article. Illegals are being deported and the number of illegals coming in has slowed. Are you suggesting they should discontinue efforts that are showing tangible results?

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

You go ask the people of Arizona if the number of people coming in has slowed. However, your comment is missing the point entirely. We need to control the border now. NOW.

Not feel happy because CBS says a few more illegals are being deported. Who cares anyway? Most turn right around and come back. Close the border. Punish businesses that hire and deny services. They’ll leave on their own.

The monetary burden on localities is staggering. LA County alone spends millions every year just birthing babies from illegals. Our schools are overwhelmed, services are stretched thin and crime is on the up.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Suggesting people be branded for a misdemeanor is not consistent with what America really stands for in my opinion.
Recent stories have shown that the current admin is deporting more people than under the last admin. Reason is due to holding businesses more accountable for hiring illegal workers. But you won’t acknowledge that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

What planet are you living on? …

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Planet Moby.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Can you say figleaf?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM

I present facts and you present well something beside fact.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Planet Moby.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM

So you both supporting branding illegals on the forehead as the person suggested? Just want to be sure I get your take on that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Are you suggesting they should discontinue efforts that are showing tangible results?

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

well, given the reduction in Illegals in AZ recenly, that is EXACTLY what the feds are saying.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:10 PM

I present facts and you present well something beside fact
Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Its called an analogy. Used to help enable comprehension. Guess it didn’t work.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:11 PM

You are ignoring the facts in the article. Illegals are being deported and the number of illegals coming in has slowed. Are you suggesting they should discontinue efforts that are showing tangible results?

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

You’re ignoring other facts in the article:

The Obama administration has been moving away from using work-site raids to target employers. Just 765 undocumented workers have been arrested at their jobs this fiscal year, compared with 5,100 in 2008, according to Department of Homeland Security figures. Instead, officers have increased employer audits, studying the employee documentation of 2,875 companies suspected of hiring illegal workers and assessing $6.4 million in fines. …

While the administration focuses on some illegal immigrants with criminal records, others are allowed to remain free, creating a “sense of impunity. As long as they keep their heads down, they’re in the clear. That’s no way of enforcing immigration law,” said Mark Krikorian, a supporter of stricter policies with the Center for Immigration Studies.

“Even the ones who haven’t committed murder or rape or drug offenses, all of them have committed federal felonies,” Krikorian said. He favors employer audits, but also the roundups that Obama has largely abandoned.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) similarly believes the administration is showing “apathy toward robust immigration enforcement.” He said at a House hearing in March that the approach is nothing more than “selective amnesty.”

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

So you both supporting branding illegals on the forehead as the person suggested? Just want to be sure I get your take on that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM

What? You’re a nut. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Leave it to you to pick one inane comment and make hay of it while ignoring everything else.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Well damn…this will just make people more likely to vote against the Democrats, especially when they start fining American citizens for not having health insurance. Sometimes I feel like I went to sleep in the USA and woke up in Venezuela.

Terrye on July 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

So you both supporting branding illegals on the forehead as the person suggested? Just want to be sure I get your take on that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM

No, Bradky. I support border security and the enforcement of existing federal immigration law.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 4:13 PM

What? You’re a nut. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Leave it to you to pick one inane comment and make hay of it while ignoring everything else.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I’ll take that as a no – glad to hear that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Another worthless leftist Clinton appointee.

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

So you both supporting branding illegals on the forehead as the person suggested? Just want to be sure I get your take on that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Uh, oh. We’re playing the hyperbole game today?

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

I’d never post here from work, obviously.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

LOL, a few months ago you were bragging about posting here while you were sitting in law class.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Well, there’s a difference. I pay for my classes. You paid for my computer and internet at the federal courthouse.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Any comments yet from the DOJ supported legal experts who want to
kill cracka-babies ?

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 4:16 PM

From the article Bradky is talking about (my emphasis):

Morton said the 400,000 people expected to be deported this year — either physically removed or allowed to leave on their own power — represent the maximum the overburdened processing, detention and immigration court system can handle.

Why are people who are “allowed to leave on their on power” counted in the 400,000 who are supposedly being deported? Doesn’t “deported” imply “kicked out”? Does anyone really believe they are leaving?

Also, the article says that more businesses are being fined for hiring illegals, but it doesn’t say whether this has had any effect on the number of illegals in the country. It could be that the businesses are simply paying the fines, but not changing hiring practices, if it is cheaper for them to pay fines than to hire legally. We have no idea from the article how punitive the fines are, only the total number of fines collected.

In any case, Bradky’s conclusion “Reason is due to holding businesses more accountable for hiring illegal workers” is not supported by the article.

Missy on July 28, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton on July 21, 2000 to a seat vacated by Robert Broomfield. Bolton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 3, 2000 on the unanimous consent of the Senate and received commission on October 13, 2000. [2]

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Susan_Bolton

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM

You are ignoring the facts in the article. Illegals are being deported and the number of illegals coming in has slowed. Are you suggesting they should discontinue efforts that are showing tangible results?

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

There are more deportations and the numbers of illegals crossing the border is down…however, Arizona’s border has a gap in it, the Obama administration failed to finish the fence or deal with the drug trade crossing that particular section of the border…that means that Arizona is dealing with a lot more crime than it has in the past. This is not just about some lettuce pickers. If the feds would make more of an effort to deal with the problem this would not be such an issue in the first place.

Terrye on July 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Throwing water on all arguments.

This temporary restraining order doesn’t change a thing!

All previous laws are still enforceable and valid. Sheriff Joe can go on a raid tomorrow. And the sheriff of Pineal County can get up a posse and raid druggies any time. There is no change to existing law.

What this does do is make socialists look foolish.

Suckered again, Bambi.

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Uh, oh. We’re playing the hyperbole game today?

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No …. someone suggested that earlier and the quote didn’t include the comment it was in reply to.

Round-em up, Ship-em out with Tattooed
foreheads “illegal”

Texyank on July 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

What this does do is make socialists look foolish.

Suckered again, Bambi.

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM

And make the electorate (at least the portion that supports the AZ law) mad and that much more anxious to make their voices heard at townhalls and at the ballot box in November.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM

others are allowed to remain free, creating a “sense of impunity. As long as they keep their heads down, they’re in the clear. That’s no way of enforcing immigration law,”

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Which is exactly how the Obama administration wants it.
They will not commit political suicide by striking down immigration law….they will just make it impossible to enforce……

….pretty much like they did today……..

……..illegal immigrants around the country will be rejoicing while tax paying,law abiding citizens will be wondering where all that rhetoric about following the “rule of law” from “Mr. Hope and Change” went to.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM

illegal immigrants around the country will be rejoicing while tax paying,law abiding citizens, not to mention the unemployed, will be wondering where all that rhetoric about following the “rule of law” from “Mr. Hope and Change” went to.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM

FIFY

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Sometimes I feel like I went to sleep in the USA and woke up in Venezuela.

Terrye on July 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Yep.

Eren on July 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM

This is exactly correct. LEO’s have always been permitted to ask about and verify residency status, and still can, if they so choose.

azkenreid on July 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Thanks for the upgrade.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:29 PM

law abiding citizens will be wondering where all that rhetoric about following the “rule of law” from “Mr. Hope and Change” went to.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM

By now all law abiding citizens know that when WE say
” rule of law”
we mean rule of constitution ( formulated by our founding fathers) and laws of our land
When Hussain says
” rule of law”
he means ” rules for radicals ” by alinsky

He is not on the same page as rest of us

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Portions of 1070 were allowed to become law tomorrow. White illegal aliens may solicit work, any who hire or transport them may be arrested. Good step.
Gotta wonder if that applies to coyotes I.e. can you arrest an illegal alien for transporting or hiring other illegal aliens? /s

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Round-em up, Ship-em out with Tattooed
foreheads “illegal”

Texyank on July 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

I don’t take he meant that literally. However, in today’s PC world one must be careful. I can see a progressive saying that about conservatives though, “Round-em up, Ship-em out to the gulag with Tattooed
foreheads “conservative” … and mean it with every bit of their dark, tortured souls.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM

ccr6 is partying now … doing shots and chanting “three cheers for Cloward Piven”

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 4:36 PM

He is not on the same page as rest of us

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Which means he is much better suited for running code pink from San Fran instead of screwing things up from the White House.

Even liberal pundits are laughing and calling this guy “O-Carter”.

Obama is so clueless…he could not tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in his own State of the Union Address.

But you are exactly right Macncheez….Obama would never make that mistake when quoting Alinsky…….Bill Ayers taught him well.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Round-em up, Ship-em out with Tattooed
foreheads “illegal”

Texyank on July 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

I love how you decide to interpret everything literally in an effort to score some sort of moral victory.

TexasDan on July 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:29 PM
Thanks for the original!..:)

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Class warfare is not what someone means when they talk about “civil war” in this context. Are all illegals from the same socioeconomic class? Certainly not.

To say that all illegals are from the same socioeconomic class is just as true as saying they’re all of the same ethnicity, so I don’t see how this helps you.

It’s awesome to watch bigots and other social-offenders spin themselves away from the obvious intent of their most brazen-remarks. You know what he meant by “civil war.” I know what you mean by ignoring that.

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I haven’t read every comment here, but I don’t see what’s making you so convinced that it’s all about race here when it seems that party affiliation is just as likely the culprit for such inane ideas.

Esthier on July 28, 2010 at 4:38 PM

can you arrest an illegal alien for transporting or hiring other illegal aliens? /s

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 4:31 PM

sadly……the answer seems to be ‘yes’.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

love how you decide to interpret everything literally in an effort to score some sort of moral victory.

TexasDan on July 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

It is the internet my Lonestar pal. There are no victories or defeats …. just terabytes of endless thread topics.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7