Preliminary Injunction Against SB1070 - Illegal Aliens Weep In The Streets, Think They Can Stay [Update] : Diggers Realm

	Home \| Bio \| Contact \| Follow:

Preliminary Injunction Against SB1070 - Illegal Aliens Weep In The Streets, Think They Can Stay [Update]

By / July 28, 2010 02:31 PM

Is SB1070 dead? As we hear now that a preliminary injunction has been put down by Judge Bolton against Arizona's new law, illegal aliens outside the state's Capitol building were weeping with joy. No doubt they feel that they will be allowed to remain in the state unchallenged as they continue to leech off of the state and federal taxpayers. Don't get too sullen though my fellow patriot's because the injunction is only against parts of the law and it is only preliminary until they go to trial. SB1070 is not dead and we do have some victory here as sweetness on our tongues.

According to what I can determine right now having looked around and in reference to things of note at the Arizona Republic, there are several things that Bolton has put an injunction on. As this has just happened recently it is hard to go into too much on what this means "on the street" with law enforcment.

Probably the biggest part of the injunction is the part that puts on hold making it a state crime to be in the country illegally. This portion of the law states it is a crime for an immigrant to not have applied for, or be carrying, "alien-registration papers" (i.e. "green card", visa). To the common man this sounds ignorant, "why wouldn't it be a crime? It's the law that they must apply to come here and carry documents.". Well it still be against the law, federally, but with this portion being temporarily struck down, they cannot be held on the state charge. They can still be turned over to ICE on the federal charge.

It declares that officers can not be required to check immigration status if they suspect someone stopped is an illegal alien, but it does not prevent them from doing so.

It also strikes down the portion making it a crime to solicit, apply or perform work as an illegal alien. I am reading that this does not include the portion related to day laborers, so I'm not sure how that plays out on the ground.

Things that the injunction did not strike include - the requirement that law enforcement must enforce federal immigration laws; And individuals can sue "Sanctuary Cities".

Accordingly, Sanctuary Cities are dead in the state of Arizona

I hope patriots are warming up their attorneys to go after places in the state that refuse to comply. I can think of one place they can start, in Phoenix Proper where Mayor Phil Gordon has smugly thumbed his nose at law enforcement.

Also Bolton did not halt the state from making it a misdemeanor for harboring and transporting illegal aliens. So churches who have been facilitating the exploitation of illegal aliens, for their own donations and greed, you have been put on notice you scoundrels!

Sheriff Joe Arpaio had this response to the Republic

Arpaio said he was not surprised by Bolton's ruling, but it will have little impact on his planned "crime-suppression" operation scheduled for Thursday.

"That's not going to affect our human-smuggling or employer-sanction investigations, that wasn't addressed in that law," he said.

Arpaio said the only thing Bolton's ruling changed is the ability for Arizona law enforcement to use a state charge - willful failure to carry documents - to book someone into jail. Now, Arpaio said, the agencies can continue to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to determine if federal agents will take custody of the suspect.

Everyone booked into Maricopa County Jail will continue to have their immigration status screened by federally trained sheriff's deputies through an agreement with ICE. " We're going to determine on our 287(g) (agreement), whether they're illegal anyway," he said.

While this injunction seems to have taken some of the teeth out of the law, there is still the lawsuit itself to be resolved. Meanwhile, illegal aliens and their supporters feel that they have won a victory, but nothing could be further from the truth. If they thought they were unwanted in that state before, this little "cheering moment" for them will be their last little taste of joy.

Law-abiding people are mad and angry... and no injunction can be put on that.

Update: 4:48PM

There is some excellent discussions in the comments section of Legal Insurrection. In particular is the reading of Bolton's ruling which states that running suspected illegal aliens through the system would be too costly to do. As commenters point out, that is not what the basis of law should be determined on. In essence what it comes down to is basically stating that if funding is inadequate for any law that that law - or portion of the law - should be ignored. That is not the job of a judge to determine, that is not within the judicial branch. They are simply to rule on whether a law is legally within its rights.

In this case it seems that Bolton has decided to pull out ridiculous reasoning to make her decision and not fulfilled her job as a judge. In essence she is legislating from the bench.

Of particular note is commenter "Prode" who brings up this valid point:

The judge has a problem with the following sentence:

“Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

If that is inappropriate, wouldn't it also be inappropriate to require the police to check whether there are any outstanding federal arrest warrants before releasing an arrestee?

If an influx of immigration checks is an undue burden due to a lack of resources, what other crime or violation reporting should be halted due to a lack of resources by the federal government? I heard the SEC is understaffed. Should we not report a Ponzi scheme if we see one?

The judge insists that the above sentence be interpreted separately from the first sentence of the statutory provision, but then proceeds to strike the entire provision. Shouldn't she have stricken just that sentence, if indeed it stands alone? Personally, I think her parsing of the statute is a little too clever by half.

There are excellent responses so be sure to head over there and read them.

This was tipped to me by BloodSpite who has his own analysis of the results of this judge's ruling at Registered Evil.

Venice Florida Vacation

This entry is in the following archive(s):

Next and Previous Entries:

Posted by Digger on July 28, 2010 02:31 PM (Permalink)

Comments

Mad and Angry is a sever understatement.

Also one of the best legal write ups I have found so far is located here for you if you like.

I have my own take at my place, as well.

Posted by: BloodSpite on July 28, 2010 03:16 PM

I love the USA:

Civil rights and liberties have been upheld.
Hate and bigotry rejected.

As it should be in this great nation.

Now let's have REAL debate on immigration reform, shall we.

Posted by: Catherine on July 28, 2010 03:35 PM

Thank you Dan!

Posted by: robbie on July 28, 2010 03:41 PM

Excellent comments in that Legal Insurrection link BS, I'll add it above.

Posted by: Digger on July 28, 2010 04:33 PM

Back in the 90's I was a law student at the University of NM. During the first semester all students had to take property law as it is considered the law that is most fundamental and influential in the information of the US legal system. About halfway through the semester it seemed to me that there was a pattern to all of the cases that we read. All of the appellate and supreme court judges seemed to always find for the side that most benefited big business and/or the wealthy. Always. Sometimes the logic (or rather illogic) they used was unbelievable. It defied rationality--and yet that's what they would do to justify their decisions. They would claim to be following the constitution or precedent but in fact they were just creating rationalizations. And they were creating them in a way that always benefited the wealthy. When you read enough cases it becomes patently visible that judges make their mind up before-hand—maybe without even reading the case—and then create a justification to rationalize and coordinate that decision with the case.

I pointed this out one day in Property class. I was ostracized from then on--persona non grata. I had raised an uncomfortable truth. But my theory is true. And here we see Judge Bolton bearing out my theory again. She threw the supporters of SB 1070 a crumb by not ruling against the whole law. But she has ruled against parts of it that are exactly like the federal law. (e.g. The part about an alien carrying documents is in the federal law.) Why did she rule this way? Because, she isn’t interested in following the rule-of-law. And she’s only interested in following precedents when it suits her purposes. She’s interested in kowtowing to the wealthy and to big business (in this case the construction and landscaping industry, the hotel industry, the restaurant industry, farming, poultry and dairy industries, the money transfer and banking industries, etc., etc.) She probably had already made up her mind before-hand and then spent the last week finding a way to rationalize the decision she really wanted. The fact of the matter is that Judge Bolton is a traitor to her country. It’s unfortunate we don’t do to traitors what they used to do to them back in the 18th century.

If you want to test my theory get yourself a property law textbook and read it. See for yourself how judges always decide in favor of the wealthy or in favor of big business--to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

One of the things that I think needs to be highlighted more in the fight against illegal immigration is who the beneficiaries are. The industries and even the individuals at every level and every industry need to be spotlighted publicly. And they need to be asked directly and publicly, “Why do you choose personal profit, i.e. money over loyalty to your fellow Americans? Why?” You know if the question gets asked often enough it becomes a meme. Other memes that would be good to repeat (maybe even in the form of bumper stickers or t-shirts) would be: “Undocumented means illegal.” “Undocumented = illegal” or maybe “Overturn Plyer vs. Doe” (This is a reference to the SCOTUS case that required school districts to provide free education to illegal aliens.) Or how about “Judge Bolton: a descendent of Benedict Arnold.” This is how the supporters of illegal immigration fight. Why not use the same tactics?

Or what would happen if the state of Arizona just decided to engage in its own campaign of civil disobedience and went ahead and enforced the law anyway. Because after all what the Obama administration and this judge are saying in effect is that they can pick and choose amongst the law and they only have to follow the laws the like. So why not states too? Sanctuary cities are already doing that.

Posted by: YolandaM on July 28, 2010 05:27 PM

Sheriff Joe has "area 1070" ready, as I understand it.

Knowing him, he will utilize it.

There will be some real "weeping" then........

********

It's not civil disobedience to enforce the law. The law (SB 1070) is not struck down. There is an injunction on 4 of many points.

These 4 points will be argued out at the Supreme Court level.

Also, Judge Bolton will have to answer to her legislating of the law instead of ruling on it's validity. She may have stepped out of her "scope of practice" (whatever the legal term for that is)

This will all play out in the coming months.

Posted by: forensicnurse on July 29, 2010 04:20 AM

Any new updates on the economic impact as illegal immigrants leave the state due to the law

Posted by: California Lemon Law Attorney on July 29, 2010 05:24 PM

Also see these other great immigration resources
The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration A 28 part detailed report on the negative impacts of illegal immigration.	Immigration Stance Find out how your members of Congress voted on immigration issues.