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.
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.