Judge rules on Arizona immigration law

[Lamplighter]

Below are excerpts of an article in the Christian Science Monitor

"US District Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction that halted key parts of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law, that would have required police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspected of being an illegal resident."

"Also blocked by the judge was a section of the law that made it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times."

"Bolton’s injunction also blocks the portion of the law that made it a state crime for an illegal foreign resident in Arizona to solicit, apply for, or perform work."

"...still in the law are provisions creating a new state crime of human smuggling, stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers, and knowingly employing illegal foreign residents."

[xoxoxoBruce]

She said the state statute created a significant enough conflict with the administration’s policies to require judicial intervention.

She said that? Administration's policies, not federal law?

By the way, that link is to the second page of the article.

The first page says:

In her ruling, Bolton also blocked a portion of the law that required state officials to check the immigration status of anyone in custody in Arizona before they were released from jail.
The judge said the state measure was preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities.

Oh really, you mean these zillions of dollars they claim they are spending on the problem, isn't enough to check the status of people before they are released from jail, but somehow the feds can check everyone buying a gun?

[classicman]

I think the decisions is pretty much what I expected. Its going to get punted upstream anyway.

Kept the obvious parts that were compliant and put "on hold" those that were in question. I like that she didn't rule with an "all-or-nothing" decision.

[TheMercenary]

I think it will go back and forth in the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court. Given the current make up it may go in favor of AZ. This should not diminish the failures of the government to enforce current law and good on AZ for making a go of it. Now if we could just get the rest of the border states to join AZ and enact similar laws. Get them all to the Supreme Court at the same time.

[classicman]

Of course its going to the supreme court. There has never been any doubt.

[tw]

All which ignores the reasons for these problems. We need to massively increase visas and immigrant quotas. And we need drug laws that are not based in prohibition. Since we cannot do what is responsible, we want to construct walls and conduct warfare to solve symptoms of defective laws.

America needs many educated foreigners. The ridiculous law means the entire year's visas expire before the first week ends. We need something like 1.8 million visas for agricultural workers. We offer only tens of thousands. We make illegal the people we need. Then deny the only reasons for resulting problems.

[Flint]

I guess I haven't read the right articles to tell me what I'm supposed to be outraged about, but isn't the law basically a law which makes it illegal to do something illegal, and says that the police are supposed to enforce the law? And the problem is?

[dmg1969]

I think some of the Judge's reasoning make me think she is either a little biased toward illegals or just stupid. Why strike down a part of the law requiring a check of immigration status before being released from jail? Her reasoning? That it would require actually require immigration officials to do their job. WTF kind of thought process is that? I am fairly confident that the ruling will be overturned on appeal. Either way, as others have said, it's going to the Supreme Court.

What drives me absolutely bat-shit crazy is that these illegals are actually protesting that the law is discriminatory when they shouldn't be here in the first place.

And I still question the sanity of anyone who does not think that we have a right to enforce our own borders.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

I think some of the Judge's reasoning make me think she is either a little biased toward illegals or just stupid. Why strike down a part of the law requiring a check of immigration status before being released from jail?

The judge didn't strike down any part of the law; she said that the most controversial parts couldn't take effect until the case had been decided, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.

[classicman]

But apparently she did...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.

Key word being semantics.

[classicman]

I was discussing this last week with a neighbor of mine. One comment he made was simplistic, but said an awful lot.
Paraphrasing ... No matter how you sugarcoat it, an illegal alien is here illegally.

There is no way to start any process of any kind without first controlling the borders and the influx of those coming here unaccounted for.
Amnesty that doesn't penalize those here illegally is a slap in the face to all those who went through the correct process and did the right thing. All the other arguments cannot be addressed without monitoring and controlling those who come here.

[classicman]

During the sweeps, deputies usually flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other alleged lawbreakers. Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics

Dunno where the numbers come from, but 60% is a damn large number.

Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan
Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

"In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear," the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

I'm not against them discussing this issue, but to enact changes to bypass the elected representation of the people seems a lot wrong to me.

[glatt]

I was interested to see in the newspaper this week that the Obama administration has been deporting illegal immigrants at a higher rate than the Bush administration did.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

I was interested to see in the newspaper this week that the Obama administration has been deporting illegal immigrants at a higher rate than the Bush administration did.

Did it also state that the rate of illegals entering the country increased as well? Or was that statistic just conveniently left off the report?