BREAKING Judge BLOCKS parts of Arizona immigration law

[bobbyw24]

By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA MYERS, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Amanda Myers, Associated Press Writers – 6 mins ago

PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for 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.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.

The volume of the protests will be likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/...na_immigration

[bobbyw24]

Bump to discuss

[AuH20]

They will never let this law embarass the Feds and Obama. Just as I expected.

[michaelwise]

Arizona Moves to Abandon Police Protection of Federally Chartered Banks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As it may be the job of the Federal government to provide police protection of Federally Chartered banking institutions, Arizona will not provide state resources in the protection of those facilities. Arizona does not have the budget means to provide protections after hours when those facilities are un-occupied.

This is the current rumor in the blogosphere.

[Stary Hickory]

Ignore the judge then. the hell with this I am tired of it. n what grounds did he block ANYTHING?

[tropicangela]

does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?

[AuH20]

does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?

Of course not. It's selective obfuscation. I carry my "papers" with me everyday in my wallet. It's called a driver's license. Next time a cop asks me for my driver's license, I'm going to throw this judge's ruling at him.

[Stary Hickory]

Well this is more fuel to the fire, things had died down a bit....I had detected a lull in the outrage level....not anymore.

I predict the law will go into effect in the end. When dealing with cops in a law violation you must produce ID anyways, to not deal with illegal immigrants in these situations is absurd. America is reaching a boiling point.


The amount on injustice is reaching a level I have never seen before. A ruling like this when the SC will not even lift a finger to protect our rights or deal honestly with the highest law of the land. It is a smack in the face and a outright outrage.

[MelissaWV]

Of course not. It's selective obfuscation. I carry my "papers" with me everyday in my wallet. It's called a driver's license. Next time a cop asks me for my driver's license, I'm going to throw this judge's ruling at him.

How about next time you go jogging or for a walk? Do you carry your ID on you for that? Not everyone does, and I'm a bit suspicious of people who'd like to make it arrestworthy to merely be out and about and not have one's ID on them.

In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

This should have been the only provision to hold up the works. The immigration checks during stops for other reasons is being blocked, but I don't understand why. They've already going to ask for your license, for instance, if they're pulling you over. It shouldn't be that big of a leap to expect someone driving to have some form of paperwork on them. Perhaps the worry was that most people would be let go with a "driving without a license" ticket, and those who looked "suspicious" of being illegals would be profiled and asked to prove their innocence? I can only speculate.

I'm also not a fan of the ruling's wording.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

There is also a part of the article that seems to say that it would be just awful if the country had a "patchwork" of differing immigration laws. That sort of thing is entirely suspect. First of all, Nebraska's immigration policies will have far less impact on the country than Texas' or California's, obviously. Second, so what? The answer is that the Government wants it all neat and tidy and wants to keep control for a rainy day.

[angelatc]

does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?

Legal residents, yes. Citizens, no.

I'd really like to see Brewer ignore the court.