Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

SB 1070 Stands!

By Greg L | 24 July 2010 | National Politics, Illegal Aliens | 36 Comments

I’m out of town at Americans For Prosperity’s RightOnline conference and news of Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to not stand in the way of the implementation of Arizona’s SB 1070 just reached me.  About a thousand or two activists here along with me were overjoyed to hear this, and there’s quite a buzz going about getting laws like this enacted in all fifty states.

Next up, Virginia.

UPDATE: The day before the law is supposed to go into effect, Judge Bolton nevertheless suspends enforcement of the most meaningful provisions pending a broader ruling.  The way the judiciary has been behaving these days, it doesn’t come as that much of a surprise.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

36 Comments

  1. june bug said on 24 Jul 2010 at 5:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is Great. Lets go and get Virginia as the next State on Board.

    Hope everyone knows that Corey Stewart’s crowd needs more signatures and Donations

    Lets do all we can to move this forward.

    Great going Greg!! You were the Leader in making this happen. It is for the best of our country.

    Thanks to everyone on the correct side of this Battle!

  2. Ron Homan said on 24 Jul 2010 at 5:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Great news but don’t go gaga yet. Obama and his Brahmins will do all they can to get their way. They will probably appeal the decision. Be that as it may, if enough states get behind Arizona it will be the beginning of dis-assembling the Marxists agenda.

  3. Anonymous said on 24 Jul 2010 at 5:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    They will do all they can to get their way? Say it ain’t so! Socialism! Marxism! OMG!!!!

  4. park'd said on 24 Jul 2010 at 8:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Next up Virginia is certainly correct because they are all going to be headed this way in about 1 week. New Jersey, Virginia and Illinois will get the lion’s share of the million or so of them that live and pass through Arizona. Bank on it folks. The park is already totally saturated with them and houses here are already 10+ to a home. We don’t want nor can we handle anymore of them.

  5. Senator Scott Brown (RINO) said on 24 Jul 2010 at 11:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow! What a surprise!

  6. Anonymous said on 25 Jul 2010 at 5:01 am:
    Flag comment

    Even if Virginia passes the immigration law we know in Prince William County chief Charlie T. Deane wont enforce it.

  7. NoVA Scout said on 25 Jul 2010 at 7:18 am:
    Flag comment

    This sounds like those old BVBL breathless posts covering in real time gang rapes in the middle of PWC streets.

    You guys are grossly misinterpreting this tiny fleck of straw in the wind. Don’t splurge on the bubbly just yet. The judge made no decision not to rule before the 29th. I can assure that she will rule before the 29th. I expect to see an opinion tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest, thus giving the Circuit Court of Appeals time to review before the effective date. What one can discern from the tea leaves of the oral argument is the obvious - she is probably going to look at the law provision by provision. An injunction is an extraordinary device that can only be exercised in the most dire conditions. If she issues an injunction, it will go to some parts of the law, but not all parts. This is a fairly extensive piece of legislation. If a federal judge can save some parts of a state statute and enjoin others, he/she will do exactly that. The US lawyers know that. That’s the way judges normally handle these things. You ought to wait to see her opinion. If she enjoins any of this legislation, it will probably be the parts most of you like the most. It is possible that she will enjoin nothing, but you can’t tell that from her conduct during the argument or the content of the link.

  8. Big Dog said on 25 Jul 2010 at 8:49 am:
    Flag comment

    My guess is this will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court .
    Lower courts are not going to have the final decision on
    such a major issue.

    We may have won a battle but not the war — yet.

  9. NoVA Scout said on 25 Jul 2010 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    No battles have been won. We’ll see when we get a decision. Until there’s a decision, nothing happened.

  10. Lloyd the Idiot said on 25 Jul 2010 at 10:46 am:
    Flag comment

    This post is about as accurate as the coverage of Sherrod’s purportedly racist remarks. NO decision has been made yet http://www.resistnet.com/group/arizonaborderwatchmanonillegalinvasion/forum/topics/district-court-judge-no-time?xg_source=activity

    do your homework

  11. Anonymous said on 25 Jul 2010 at 11:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Sherrod’s purportedly racist remarks? Perported…thats funny.

    Shirley Sherrod, Albany Office, FSC: “It makes you wonder sometimes why is it that it took Farmers Home Administration that long to, to send a notice. Why is it that the county supervisor didn’t send any kind of letter, you know, leading up to getting’ the delinquent notices in ‘87. So many strange things happen when you have only white people in charge of dealing with our people.”

    A 20 year old pre-redemption statement? Try 2006.
    http://newsreel.org/transcripts/homecomi.htm

    Hm. “…our people”

    CNN Chief National Correspondent John King asked Sherrod what she would say to Breitbart:

    “I’d tell him he’s a liar. He knew exactly what effect that would have on not only - he knew what effect that would have on the conservative, racist people he’s dealing with. That’s why I started getting the hate mail. And that’s why I started getting the hate calls. He got the effect he was looking for,”

    Now we know why the WH issued that ” on behalf of the entire administration” apology to Sherrod. Why she was offered a new position.

    She is now doing the whole talk show circuit, proving herself to be a royal loudmouth pain in the neck embarrassment. She won’t shut up until she gets the next compensation check for all her “pain and suffering”.

    Race Card Fraud
    By Thomas Sowell

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/20/race_card_fraud_106382.html

  12. Lloyd the Idiot said on 25 Jul 2010 at 1:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Whatever, Anon. Amend my post to read, “This post is about as accurate as the coverage of Sherrod’s remarks.”

    My point is that the post jumped the gun.

  13. NoVA Scout said on 25 Jul 2010 at 4:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    BTW, I don’t even think that the US asked for the entire package to be enjoined. I could be wrong because I don’t have a copy of the motion and complaint with me at the moment. But I think they were focussing on particular provisions. So when there is a decision (as opposed to the imaginary one Greg was getting excited about) what you need to do is to track through which provisions are enjoined and which are not and then lay them alongside the request.

  14. BattleCat said on 25 Jul 2010 at 6:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t see anywhere that a decision has been handed down from the judge yet. And yes, the Ododo administration will file a racial profiling suit against the FIRST hispanic pulled over in AZ, but that probably won’t go anywhere either. Ododo is going to have a hard time when people and states start to fight back.

  15. Anonymous said on 26 Jul 2010 at 10:46 am:
    Flag comment

    LOOK OUT VIRGINIA AND THE EAST COAST! HERE THEY COME!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2514063220100725

  16. The Lone Ranger said on 26 Jul 2010 at 5:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is a question for NoVa Scout: Are you suggesting there are non-US lawyers working to circumvent SB-1070?

    I ask because NoVA Scout said on 25 Jul 2010 at 7:18 am: The US lawyers know that. That’s the way judges normally handle these things. You ought to wait to see her opinion. If she enjoins any of this legislation, it will probably be the parts most of you like the most. It is possible that she will enjoin nothing, but you can’t tell that from her conduct during the argument or the content of the link.

  17. Junes_Reston said on 26 Jul 2010 at 6:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve been following this closely with friends who live in Phoenix. No ruling has been made yet, but Judge Bolton has asked “pointed questions” of the government’s attorneys about some sections of the law.

    The one section of the law that upsets the illegal aliens and advocates the most is the right to ask ones legal status when they are arrested for any crime. Judge Bolton said this is currently “the procedure” used for everyone and there is nothing wrong with that.

    The biggest concern is the cost to detain illegals while waiting for ICE to pick them up. Sherrif Joe said he would be more than happy to set up another tent city if the county/state will approve the funding. Maricopa county is actively involved with 287(g) so law enforcement already has authority to detain.

    The entire law will not sail through, but I’m quite certain Obama and his flunkies will be disappointed with the way Judge Bolton rules on the rest of SB 1070. How she rules will also have a trickle down effect on the other law suits. When this over and done with, many people are going to be very unhappy.

    As zero hour nears, many illegals are leaving the state. Businesses (including rental properties) that put all their eggs in one basket and catered specifically to an illegal alien customer base are feeling the pinch. Some who saw it coming divested, while the others rode the gravy train right on through to the end of the road.

    I’m excited. Arizona is such a beautiful state. When things normalize, it will become a haven for American businesses and new homeowners.

  18. park'd said on 26 Jul 2010 at 7:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    $100 says that Manassas Park and the surrounding areas in general have thousands of new ‘friends’ by this time next month. Anyone want in on that bet? You can be sure their east coast buds are already on the horn with them telling them it’s cool to come here, that there are plenty of jobs and the PWC police chief is a friend of ours. Corey Stewart holds ZERO water with me until he fires that man himself or finds a way to make it happen. Until that day, anything that comes out of Corey’s mouth with regard to this topic is just blah blah blah blah.

  19. NoVA Scout said on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    LR - I was using the usual shorthand for “lawyers representing the United States of America”. I guess we all fall into the trap of convenience on abbreviations. You probably thought I was referring to US Magazine. Sorry about that.

    Junes_Reston: there is no prohibition anywhere in the United States on local authorities who make arrests on other charges determining the immigration status of arrestees. You don’t need a state law to do it. I don’t think that’s the focal point of the lawsuit. Some local jurisdicitions don’t bother, because knowing the status usually doesn’t have any impact on the outcome of the local prosecution. Others do this routinely. This is no big deal one way or the other, although I suspect the more common practice is to check once a suspect is in custody.

  20. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Park’d,
    As I have stated previously, the documentation needed to enroll a child in PWCPS needs to be changed. In its current form, it is similar to the giant drive-through loophole there used to be in VA to obtain a DL. There was no requirement to provide proof of legal residency; an affadavit was sufficient proof. That changed post 9-11 when many common sense Virginians realized that the law had to be changed.

    However, to enroll a child in school, the rules are the same and there are two standards. You are told to provide copies of utilities, lease or deed, etc …. or, for our illegal alien residents, merely sign an affidavit attesting to residency.

    It’s the DL issue redux. Plus, it sets up two standards whereby residents are treated very differently.

    Require all parents enroling children to provide a current VA DL and VA car registration with a PWC address. The standard should be the same for everyone. The only exception would be AD military who often have an out-of-state domicile.

    It got pretty frustrating to go to school events well into the school year to see plates from DC and MD. I think the law requires you to change your tags and DL within 10 days of a move. My son works with several PWC residents who use a relative’s address out of state to avoid the car registration tax. We shouldn’t be aiding that behavior. I am also sick of the “different standards for different groups” mentality in this county.

    The word would quickly get out that about the new requirements and would discourage those who couldn’t provide a VA DL with a PWC address from moving to the county.

    It can be done; the changes were made for the DL at the state in spite of overwhelming opposition from the Amnesty crowd. The usual racist ad hominems were trotted out, but in the end, common sense prevailed.

    Of course, PWCPS will be a fountainhead of resistance, since their own budget projections state they anticipate continued increased enrolment in ESOL and free/reduce lunch students …. so the illegal alien population has clearly earned a “most-favored” status.

    Unfortunately, we, not PWCPS Administrators, pay the actual taxes, and therefore, the wishes of those who pay the freight should prevail.

  21. Junes_Reston said on 27 Jul 2010 at 6:06 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout said on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:13 pm: Flag comment

    Junes_Reston: there is no prohibition anywhere in the United States on local authorities who make arrests on other charges determining the immigration status of arrestees. You don’t need a state law to do it. I don’t think that’s the focal point of the lawsuit. Some local jurisdicitions don’t bother, because knowing the status usually doesn’t have any impact on the outcome of the local prosecution. Others do this routinely. This is no big deal one way or the other, although I suspect the more common practice is to check once a suspect is in custody.
    ===========

    If you feel AZ is one of those “show me your papers” states, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise. I have met Sherrif Joe and several of his officers. Their process is within the law, and has been for several years. Despite numerous law suits, none of have held up in the court system, which should tell you something.

  22. Cynic said on 27 Jul 2010 at 9:23 am:
    Flag comment

    Junes_Reston said on 27 Jul 2010 at 6:06 am:
    “which should tell you something.”

    It sure does tell us something - that in Arizona, the scum trouble makers supporting the illegals are big losers.

  23. court-watcher said on 27 Jul 2010 at 9:25 am:
    Flag comment

    Important for all to remember as alluded to in several emails above that a request for an injunction, which is a form of equitable relief when “irreparable harm” (a legal phrase of art) will immediately result, is somewhat different than a request to substantly declare a statute unconstitutional. A judge could easily refuse to grant an injunction, with a higher court later finding the statute unconstitutional. This happens with some frequency.

    My point is not to advocate one way or another. Rather it is to help folks interpret the implications of what the district court does or doesn’t do. Certainly, if the district court not only denies the injunction because it believe that immediate irreparable harm does not result, but also because the court finds that the statute is not unconstitutional, folks in favor of the statute should view that at least as a temporary victory.

    As to whether the feds will appeal lose, the answer is almost certainly yes. Kneedler, the lawyer who argued the case, is the principal deputy solicitor of the United States, and has also been acting solicitor of the United States. He is among those few in American history who have personally argued the most cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Believe me, when he argues a case before a district court he certainly wants to win there, but it is always done with an eye towards appeal in the event of defeat.

    I have worked on several cases involving Kneedler. He is one of the most brilliant, strategic advocates I have ever met. He is never to be underestimated.

  24. court-watcher said on 27 Jul 2010 at 1:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oops, I the first clause in the next to last paragraph was intended to read: “As to whether the feds will appeal if they lose….”

  25. Cynic said on 27 Jul 2010 at 3:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    court-watcher,

    Without any legal training - had figured that was what you meant!

  26. MPResident said on 28 Jul 2010 at 1:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Looks like Greg jumped the gun on this one. Fox news is reporting the Judge blocked the most controversial and strongets portions of the law until the courts have time to review it.

  27. Battlecat said on 28 Jul 2010 at 1:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Never underestimate the court’s ability to destroy our nation.

  28. Or more accurately said on 28 Jul 2010 at 1:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Never underestimate the constitution’s ability to get in the way of things.

  29. R said on 28 Jul 2010 at 2:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    You can tell the judge was at least “in spirit” understanding of what Arizona was trying to accomplish:

    The first sentence of the decision reads, “Against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficing crimes, and serious public safety concerns, the Arizona Legislature enacted a set of statutes and statutory amendments in the form of Senate Bill 1070….”

    In those instances where the judge refuses to enjoin the law and ruled against the feds, the judge made clear that it was not a close call: “Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is not likely to succeed on the merits [re the following provisions].” Opinion at p. 3.

    Ultimately, while one may not agree with the impact of the decision, it is not a decision that lacks proper reasoning. Application of the doctrine of federal preemption is not new, and the judge’s reliance of applicable precedents is in not novel. To be sure, it would have required an “activist” judge to rule differently. [And regarding this let’s be sure what we ask for.]

    The federal government has had the power and authority to enforce the immigration laws for years and has not. Congress has the authority to change the existing law if it is not working and Congress has not. The court ruled properly, consistent with existing law. Don’t blame the judge; blame Congress.

  30. Kris Day said on 28 Jul 2010 at 4:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    This article indicates that ICE was actually doing its job and deported local illegal immigrants… but ICE makes a point that it’s the illegals who commit crimes who have reason to be insecure (i.e. wink, wink, as long as you don’t commit a crime, we’ll look the other way). It steams me, and I can very well appreciate why the good citizens of Arizona feel the need to enforce the laws when the federal government fails to act on our behalf.

    See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/illegals-snatched-in-raid/

  31. Anonymous said on 28 Jul 2010 at 7:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is not the final ruling. It is a preliminary injunction.

    Arizona can immediately appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and failing that, on to SCOTUS. Whether those appeal courts would hear the merits of the case right now, or just dismiss the appeal, and tell them to come back later with a final order is another matter.

    The judge has helped open up a big can of worms.

    I hope this goes all the way to the SCOTUS.

  32. Anonymous said on 28 Jul 2010 at 7:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Arlington County Police Department’s Special Victim’s Unit is investigating a sexual assault that occurred on July 25th, 2010.

    At approximately 5:30 p.m., a seven-year-old female was sexually assaulted by an unknown male in the 3600 block of Columbia Pike. The child was playing in a small play area outside the laundromat while her mother was inside doing laundry. The suspect pulled the child inside a small play house and sexually assaulted her. The child was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

    The suspect is described as a Hispanic male 5’1”, 130lbs, brown eyes, bushy/curly black hair, and a medium complexion with a mustache. The suspect was last seen wearing a purple short-sleeved shirt with green writing in the upper right chest area, dark pants and black dress shoes. A witness assisted police with a computer generated composite sketch of the suspect.

    Anyone who has information about this assault or the identity of the suspect is asked to call Detective Cynthia Garcia at (703) 228-4208. Det. Garcia can also be contacted via e-mail at cgarci (at) arlingtonva.us

  33. NoVA Scout said on 28 Jul 2010 at 8:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    I thought it was reported in this space that the Judge had decided not to enjoin the law.

  34. Anonymous said on 29 Jul 2010 at 8:15 am:
    Flag comment

    What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say [Heather Mac Donald]

    In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

    So determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration’s political strategy regarding the law’s putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated. S.B. 1070 authorizes local law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they have lawfully stopped, if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally, and if the inquiry into immigration status is practicable. S.B. 1070 also required that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona stated in its brief and testified in court that the legislative intent behind that sentence regarding arrestees was that only people for whom there is already reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally would have their immigration status checked after arrest. The section does not apply to every arrestee.

    Judge Bolton rejected that testimony, however, in order to buttress the White House claim that large numbers of legal aliens would be subject to immigration inquiries if S.B. 1070 went into effect. As the Justice Department portrayed it, and as Judge Bolton affirmed, massive categories of legal aliens by definition do not have proof of their legal status with them. If those legal aliens are now to be queried about their immigration status following every arrest in Arizona, they will be subject to undue harassment, the federal government and the judge concluded.

    The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries, asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

    Furthermore, the number of such individuals who would also be in a position to raise an officer’s reasonable suspicion that they were in the country illegally is extremely small. In a petition for injunctive relief, a judge must balance the equities in favor of both parties. The interest of Arizona, where 500,000 illegal aliens reside, in restoring the rule of law should be weighed against the interest of those small numbers of legal aliens or aliens whose status is in abeyance and who might be questioned regarding their immigration status because they have raised a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

    Judge Bolton’s ruling regarding S.B. 1070’s provision on the possession of immigration documents verges on bad faith. S.B. 1070 adopts virtually verbatim a federal law requiring lawful aliens to carry their immigration papers with them; the Arizona version merely lessens the federal penalties regarding the amount of the fine and possible jail time for violation of the federal document requirement. As the judge notes, federal registration power is exclusive; Congress’s registration scheme may not be altered by the states. But nothing in S.B. 1070 changes the rules for registration; the Arizona law merely confirms those rules in state law. Judge Bolton alleges that the Arizona provision “alters the penalties” in the federal law, without disclosing that the Arizona law lowers them. She concludes without the slightest trace of argument that the Arizona document provision “stands as an obstacle to the uniform federal registration scheme and is therefore impermissible.”

    The only factually plausible objection to S.B. 1070’s document requirement and to the provision authorizing inquiries into an alien’s status is that Arizona may penalize someone for being in the country illegally whom the federal government intends to ignore. It is the effect of the law on illegal aliens, not on legal ones, that has most upset the Obama administration and illegal-alien advocates (the Bush administration would probably have reacted similarly). A large reason why S.B. 1070’s impact on illegal aliens was so carefully kept offstage in the federal government’s brief and the judge’s ruling is that Congress has repeatedly expressed its intention that local governments cooperate with the federal government in the “apprehension, detention or removal or [illegal] aliens,” as a 1996 federal law declares. The very immigration-information clearinghouse that Judge Bolton worries would be overtaxed by S.B. 1070 was created to effectuate Congress’s mandate that the federal and local governments share information regarding illegal aliens. As the Senate declared in 1996 when banning sanctuary laws (a ban whose disregard in Arizona led to S.B. 1070): “illegal aliens do not have a right to remain in the U.S. undetected and apprehended.” If in fact that information clearinghouse becomes burdened with “too many” inquiries from Arizona, it’s for the executive branch to seek greater funding. Congress never said: We want information sharing, but only up to a point. Moreover, many of Arizona’s own law-enforcement officers are capable of using the federal immigration database without needing to go through federal channels.

    The vast majority of the public supports immigration enforcement. S.B. 1070 promised to make such enforcement a reality. For the moment, the public will has been defeated, which is why S.B. 1070’s effect on illegal immigration was the one aspect of the law that neither the Obama administration or Judge Bolton dared to address.

    — Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor to City Journal and a co-author of The Immigration Solution.

    Arizona Immigration Decision [Andy McCarthy]

    On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

    In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. 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, 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), 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.”

    However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

    What Burden? [Mark Krikorian]

    A key part of the Justice Department case against Arizona, which Judge Bolton seems to have swallowed, is that, as Andy put it below, “Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees . . . because that would tremendously burden the feds.” Specifically, the claim is that too many legal-status requests will be submitted to ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC); in the words of the ruling:

    Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.

    The judge based this on the declaration of the guy who runs the LESC, David Palmatier. Sounds plausible, but my colleague Jessica Vaughan, in her own declaration, demolished Palmatier’s logic about the LESC somehow being overwhelmed (see paragraphs 40-62). Of course, the judge seems to have simply ignored math she found inconvenient

    Re: Arizona Immigration Decision [Peter Kirsanow]

    After a quick read of Judge Bolton’s decision in the Arizona illegal immigration case and based on a bit of experience in federal preemption issues in a previous life, I concur with Andy’s take on the matter.

    Many in the media are reporting the decision as a major win for the Obama administration. That’s a sloppy description. It’s a temporary judicial win and a likely political problem — at least in the short-to-intermediate term — for the administration.

    Today’s decision increases the probability that supporters of the Arizona law will see the federal government’s refusal to enforce the border as an issue in the fall elections. Those supporters, who outnumber opponents of the measure by more than two to one, will be motivated to vote this November — and again and again until the case is finally adjudicated on the merits. That might not be for some time, possibly extending to the 2012 elections. Obviously, that could complicate the reported long-term administration strategy of galvanizing those voters perceived as opponents of the Arizona measure. If the law is still not in effect in 2012, opponents of the Arizona law won’t be as motivated as its frustrated supporters.

    Today’s biggest losers are Arizona Democrats, followed by any other candidates nationwide who will have to defend their opposition to the law and support for today’s decision.

    An Abominable Decision [Mark R. Levin]

    This is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard, but then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a predetermined decision.

    First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here — a facial challenge — is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully. It requires that the plaintiff (here the federal government) must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical arguments — yet that is exactly what the court relies on in its ruling: the assertion that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the AZ law on the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion. It’s pure supposition.

    As the court notes, the burden a party must meet when engaging in a facial challenge of a given statute is established in United States v. Salerno. The court pays lip service to Salerno at the beginning of its analysis on the “likelihood of success on the merits,” but then proceeds to ignore the Salerno principles.

    The court cites Salerno when it notes: “A facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or imaginary cases.” Then the court doesn’t even attempt to actually analyze the provisions it overturns within the Salerno context, except in one instance — in fn. 18 — where it upholds a provision of SB 1070.

    Distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge. At one point the court engages in a hypothetical example, when it talks about a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash, wondering whether he could be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers under that circumstance. (The court talks about John Doe, a legal alien from Chile who was walking his dog without a leash and was stopped by Sheriff Smith and detained at the local jail for eight hours while his status was checked. It didn’t actually happen.)

    The judge also worries that increasing the time a person is detained while his immigration status is being determined might be unconstitutional. Again, pure speculation. (Moreover, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has already found that such a delay is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion to check a person’s status.)

    In the bulk of its legal analysis, the court applies a selective reading of the case to an incomplete reading of the statute. In particular, respecting the provision related to confirming a person’s legal status, the court largely ignores the requirement that law-enforcement officers are able to confirm a person’s legal status only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. The judge essentially omits the reasonable-suspicion component of the law and concludes that the act implements a new set of immigration rules particular to Arizona, in violation of a case called Hines v. Davidowitz.

    Hines is an old case dealing with a vastly different Pennsylvania law. Here’s what the Hines court correctly concluded: “The question whether a state law is invalid as conflicting with Federal laws touching the same subject is not to be determined according to any rigid formula or rule, but depends upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

    The Pennsylvania act required every alien 18 years or over, with certain exceptions, to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any “other information and details” that the Department of Labor and Industry may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or agent of the Department of Labor and Industry, and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one. The Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for “the purpose of ready reference,” and furnishing a copy of the classification to the Pennsylvania Motor Police. Nonexempt aliens who fail to register are subject to a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. For failure to carry an identification card or for failure to show it upon proper demand, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.

    “Our conclusion,” said the court, “is that [the challenger of the PA law] is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.” Hines does not support the court’s conclusion respecting the AZ statute. That case clearly deals with an entirely new legal regime. AZ’s statute merely complements the federal statutory scheme.

    Amazingly, today’s decision does not provide any substantive analysis of the very high standards required for mounting a successful facial challenge. The judge thinks certain events or difficulties will occur, and then uses her thoughts as a substitute for empirical evidence. The fact is that the AZ law does not create any new or additional federal responsibilities. It does not establish any new or inconsistent obligations for aliens legally or illegally residing in or otherwise found in Arizona. And, unlike the Hines case so prominent in the court’s ruling, Arizona’s law does not establish any new or extra forms, registration procedures, or other obligations for aliens, legal or illegal.

    Respecting preemption, which is the substantive core of the federal government’s case, once again the court presents no evidence in support of its conclusion that AZ is likely to impermissibly interfere with federal law on multiple fronts, including the requirement that aliens carry papers or that state and local law enforcement may undertake constitutionally proper inquiries into the legal status of those they stop. AZ isn’t requiring the federal government to do anything. The federal government can choose not to take AZ’s calls and not cooperate. The court has essentially parroted the federal government’s claims about burdens.

    Moreover, the federal government does not “occupy the field” in any event. Indeed, as a matter of federal law and long-standing practice, it encourages states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law — both in practice and law. In fact, it relies heavily on them.

    Federal preemption can be either express or implied: express where the Constitution says so (declaration of war), implied by conflict with federal law. In the immigration context, implied preemption exists only 1) if a statute falls into the narrow category of a “regulation of immigration”; 2) if Congress expressed “the clear and manifest purpose” of completely occupying the field and displacing all state activity; or 3) if the state regulation conflicts with federal laws such that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” (De Canas v. Bica). Federal immigration law does not preempt AZ law, and the authors of the AZ law were well acquainted with the pitfalls they needed to avoid — and avoided them.

    I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision.

    — Mark Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, which has filed an amicus brief in this case.

    Facts Should Matter [Mark Krikorian]

    Not to get too far into the weeds, but to amplify a point Heather made below about today’s Arizona ruling:

    The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries [my emphasis — MK], asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

    It’s actually better than that. Visitors from visa-waiver countries have their duration of stay stamped in their passports, so they do so have “readily available” to them proof of legal status, and the federal government obviously knows this. A colleague was shocked that DHS and DOJ would tell the court such a “complete bald faced lie.” Considering they also lied about the likely increased burden on the Law Enforcement Support Center, you’ve got to figure that the Obama people are desperate. Though if these lies are exposed in the subsequent litigation it may not make much difference anyway, since the Clinton-appointee’s ruling “verges on bad faith,” as Heather put it.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/

  35. Walter E. Kurtz said on 29 Jul 2010 at 9:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Sheiss occurs.

  36. Anonymous said on 29 Jul 2010 at 9:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Clinton Appointee disregards law and Constitution in support of meritless government arguments

    Clinton Appointed Susan Bolton:

    “There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law), 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.”— U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton
    The argument is this, If the Federal government abdicates it’s Constitutional duties (which it has) which are to protect American borders and protect the American people, is a State within the Constitution if that State enforces Constitutional laws that the Federal government refuses to enforce?

    Clinton appointee Judge Susan Bolton is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with America. She has made herself complicit in the Federal government’s violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. We are no longer a nation of laws; we are now, a nation of progressive judicial rulings.(see article)

    Judge Bolden did not rule on the facts of Arizona’s immigration case nor did she rule on the law. Instead Judge Bolton ruled on the nonsensical “what if” arguments that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration have been floating in the Progressive Leftwing Media. (Complaint)(Response)(Decision)

    The Soetoro administration mischaracterized this case as a civil rights issue instead of the National security or National sovereignty issue that it is. And judge Bolton foolishly bought these unreasonable arguments instead of applying the law. This is exactly the danger of an Elena Kagan and a Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court because this is exactly what they will do.

    The Soetoro administration argued “what if” resident aliens or even Mexican Americans are stopped and asked about their citizenship wouldn’t that be a violation of their civil rights? They also argued, “what if“ there is racial profiling would that be a violation of civil rights?

    The Soetoro administration argued for the court to accept that there might be instances of civil rights violations, if Arizona police in the normal conduct of their duties ask someone in a lawful contact to show some identification. Judge Susan Bolton did.

    The answers to these “what if” arguments where so simple that even a Federal judge couldn’t mess up a decision on the facts, until of course Judge Susan Bolton did. It is clear now that her apparent inability to adjudicate unbiasly and logically is probably why this Clinton appointee was selected to hear this case.

    That notwithstanding, the answers are, one: we are all subject to being stopped and asked for identification. There is no undue civil rights burden placed on anyone asked to produce identification in this manner. As citizens, we carry identification with us at all times. Two, the Arizona law is explicitly written specifically to prevent and discourage racial profiling. Racial profiling is a politically correct trumped up non sequitur meant to cloud the debate and divide the America people by the Left.

    Look every time you and I are stopped by the police we are asked for identification, but according to Judge Bolton’s ruling illegal aliens are now a special protected class complete with special rights, they cannot be asked the question that hundreds of thousands of Americans are asked every day, “May I see some identification.” Below are provisions of Arizona’s 1070 bill that Judge Bolton blocked.

    Key parts of Senate Bill 1070 that will not go into effect Thursday:

    • The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.
    • The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers.”
    • The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)
    • The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

    Andy McCarthy said that this decision is “nuts”

    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, 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. –Andy McCarthy (source)
    Judge Bolton has done irreparable harm to the integrity and independence of all U.S. jurisprudence. Her ruling is further confirmation of the corruption of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. government.

    It is apparent to everyone except the Radical Progressives and Judge Susan Bolton, that the Federal Government is engaged complicatedly with the enemies of the United States to fundamentally change this country. Change it from a country based on the principles of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers into a nation that no longer is a nation of laws but a nation of progressive judicial rulings.

    http://creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com/2010/07/clinton-appointee-disregards-law-and.html

Comments are closed.


Views: 1311