Arizona Illegal Alien Law Partially Blocked

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted a partial injunction requested by the federal government on SB 1070.  The following portions have been temporarily suspended: the portion of the law that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested, (they can still check anyway) the section of law that makes it a crime if someone fails to carry immigration registration papers, and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal alien to seek work.

The “reasoning”:

“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.”

Then why is the federal government not enforcing laws that apply in all 50 states?

The suspended portions:

Sections of S.B. 1070 are “preempted” by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B):
requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any
person arrested prior to releasing that person.

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-1509:
creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(C):
creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

Section 6 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5):
authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The portions of the law that were upheld:

Section 1 of S.B. 1070 no A.R.S. citation:
providing the intent of the legislation

Portions of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(A):
prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws

A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F):
requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to unlawfully present aliens

A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-(L):
allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law

Section 4 of S.B. 10702 A.R.S. § 13-2319:
amending the crime of human smuggling

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B):
creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic

Section 7 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 23-212:
amending the crime of knowing employment of unauthorized aliens

Section 8 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 23-212.01:
amending the crime of intentional employment of unauthorized aliens

Section 9 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 23-214:
amending the requirements for checking employment eligibility

Section 11 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 41-1724:
creating the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund

Sections 12 & 13 of S.B. 1070 no A.R.S. citation:
administering S.B. 1070

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2929:
creating a separate crime for a person in violation of a criminal offense to transport or harbor an unlawfully present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present alien to come to or live in Arizona

Section 10 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 28-3511:
amending the provisions for the removal or impoundment of a vehicle to permit impoundment of vehicles used in the transporting or harboring of unlawfully present aliens

Link to court ruling: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/azimmig0728.pdf

More:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/arizona-law-upheld-in-part-order-and.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395314079925720.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/28/arizona-law-may-hinge-on-cooperation-from-feds/

Bottom line:
It’s not overturned.  There’s just an injunction against certain parts of the bill until a full trial takes place.
The decision still leaves in place the enforcement of illegal immigration laws, as far as: arrest and detention of illegals once they’re caught in the act of another crime, the prosecution of employers who hire illegals, and the prosecution of those who aid, abet, and harbor illegals.

Evidently, she placed a (temporary) restriction on the proof of legal residency requirement during traffic stops, unless it pertains to “stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic”, which flies in the face of her injunction against the “reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States”.
Whenever you get pulled over by a police officer for a traffic offense, one of the first things they say is: “May I see your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance”. If you don’t present them, guess what happens. Illegals don’t normally produce valid identification under those circumstances, so what does Bolton suggest they do?

They’ll be arrested. Sheriff Arpaio will still be filling his jails with illegal miscreants.

Her decision against the meatier parts of the bill is not surprising; she’s a democrat and a Clinton appointee.

I have a few questions for Susan Bolton:

At some point we have to have our laws enforced; either at the border or after illegals are caught in more felonious activity after they’ve snuck in. When do you think that should happen? Do you really believe that each and every illegal alien apprehended in the United States should appear before a federal judge to be deported?

Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Governor Jan Brewer responds:

“It’s a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I’m sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal. The bottom line is we’ve known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds and they haven’t done their job so we were going to help them do that.”

I suspect this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.