Judge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

AP via Yahoo News ^ | 28 July 2010 | JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA MYERS

[bill1952]

>I believe McCain voted for this Bolton judge.

Of course he did. - He voted for this and all of the mcCainiacs here defend that decision to the hilt.

[MrB]

“Agitate to the point of conflict - then when the violence gets too much, the people will welcome the tyranny ‘required’ to quell the violence”.

Hegel/Alynski

[mwl8787]

Voting changes many things.

Elections have consequences.

This decision hurts Reid if Angle can properly exploit it.

[KC_Lion]

I am sadden to think that you are right

many people have been trying to rationalize what has been happening to our country. I for longest time could no fathom a second Civil War. But did the People in 1859?

May G-d have mercy on us.

[OafOfOffice]

Alrighty then. Arpaio sets up a few more tents in the 100 degree sun. Buys a few more pink drawers. Everyone stopped has to show proof of registration, insurance and drivers license. They don’t have it, off to the tents. They can wait there for ICE to show up to deport them. Bologne sandwiches for all. ICE too.

Gov Brewer needs to find a way around this ruling just as Obama wanted done on the SCOTUS freedom of speech ruling.

How about illegals building the fence on the border until ICE shows up?!?!

The level of anger over this is not going to be good.

[fruser1]

If Feds can get away w/not enforcing immigration laws due to lack of resources, can they also avoid enforcing environmental laws due to lack of resources?

[melancholy]

FF,

Thanks a lot for the legalese.

I reported what I heard from the two lawyers on FOX. They were talking in terms of MANDATORY REQUIREMENT is blocked by the judge.

Clearly, what you posted doesn’t even imply a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.

[Jake from AZ]

“Elections have consequences.”

You really believe that that’s still true in this country?

[Fundamentally Fair]

Clearly, what you posted doesn’t even imply a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see it as a mandatory requirement either. Some will get into a protracted discussion of the word "shall," but I think that the words "reasonable" and "when practicable" leave leeway for any LEO.

I've been screaming at the radio all morning.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

kevao: “I believe McCain voted for this Bolton judge.”

This is all I found on the search engines:

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

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Arizona
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 21, 2000, to a seat vacated by Robert C. Broomfield; Confirmed by the Senate on October 3, 2000.

[cowboyusa]

Yep, defy them. It should start tommorrow.

[Reagan is King]

Another thing the next Prez candidate for the Republican side better be STRONG on securing the borders and deporting the illegals. This just became an even bigger political issue to fire up the base. We have government by judicial activism when a state can’t even enforce the federal law or their own law.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Sheriff Joe offered to handlet the processing after the AZ police arrest them. He could pop up some tents and give them peanut butter sandwiches. No worries. The plan was in place — wouldn’t cost the Feds a dime. Not good enough.

[servantboy777]

or get away with not enforcing the Iragi borders? Perhaps no resources for the Afgahn borders either?

I'm thinking were broke.....let's stop all this globe trotting and bring our military back home to guard the borders.

[LowTaxesEqualProsperity]

Drug dealers, rapists and other assorted criminal invaders say “thank you Judge”.

[AuntB]

“kevao: “I believe McCain voted for this Bolton judge.”

I don’t know about that...he usually votes for the dem’s picks.

What he didn’t do was join with 81 other congressmen/senators in the amicus brief supporting AZ 1070.
Here is the list of signers. What a shock.....NO JOHN McCain!

The Congressional amicus brief is posted here at the House Judiciary Republicans’ website.

The following Members of the House and Senate have signed onto the brief:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38184

[melancholy]

LOL! Take this, Buddy, so you scream as I was screeming hearing this. I wrote a FReep mail to a bunch of FReepers because I have no threads or links, yet:

I waited for a thread to be started in order to ping you to this extraordinary piece of news but saw nothing yet.

I just heard on FOX that the 90,000 plus secret documents’ leaker sent them to the 0b0z0 Admin. WEEKS AGO and asked them if anything the Admin. wouldn’t like to be published.

He never got an answer!!!!!!!!!!!

That tells me that the communists want to use the crisis to throttle the Internet and/or get out of Afghanistan. There could be more reasons behind this contrived crisis-to-be. A crisis that is created solely to use against fair elections.

My guess is as good as yours.

[King of Florida]

Not sure what you're quoting there, but it's decidedly inaccurate -- and leaves out what the judge found was a key mandatory provision. The law actually provides:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.

The court found that the emphasized language -- left out of your quotation -- required a mandatory determination of immigration status for all arrestees.

[Red in Blue PA]

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” -JFK

[Wuli]

“including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.”

Even in such a simple statement they cannot write the truth.

The law did not REQUIRE - at all times and for no good reason - that someone’s immigration status be checked.

If, in the course of regular law enforcement activity, the officers came upon some cause for “checking” immigration status (like the driver had no valid ID whatsoever) then the law empowered the officers to perform due diligence on a suspect’s immigration status.

In other words, a cause, a need to do so must be identified in the situation. Does the LAW “require” it? No, it PERMITS it when it is believed to be warranted, in the course of normal law enforcement work.