I shouldn’t have been surprised. And yet I was when around lunch time I opened the Drudge Report to discover that Federal Judge Susan Bolton had indeed issued an injunction against AZ’s SB 1070 that essentially guts it of any power… That is to say, she disallowed the part where officers are required/allowed to determine the status of any whom they arrest in conjunction with another crime, should they have sufficient justification to think they might be here illegally.
Her argument? It would inconvenience some of those legally here if they didn’t have their documentation with them, and had to wait around while officers checked on their status after being arrested.
Secondly, she claimed federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement resources would be completely overwhelmed, unable to handle the vast numbers of inquiries that were sure to come their way, and leaving their other responsibilities unattended to because of the diversion of their workers.
Thirdly, she ruled that while Arizona’s law mirror’s federal law, it nevertheless pre-empts it because Arizona has altered the penalties to be levied on those found guilty. That’s true. Arizona did alter the penalties — SB 1070 penalties are reduced from what the federal law stipulates. More to the point, though, is the fact that this whole part of her argument is a distortion. It’s not that our law would pre-empt federal law, but that it would pre-empt the federal government’s policy regarding that law. That is, their policy of not enforcing it.
Heather MacDonald at NRO’s The Corner gives a brief, incisive (some say biting) critique of the ruling HERE (“What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say”).
Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy gives his take, highlighting Bolton’s misapplication of the ruling in a previous court case, and the fact she’s ignored other case precedents that apply directly. One of which, Plyler v. Doe (1982), went to the Supreme Court, which ruled, “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.]” You can read his entire review HERE.
Meanwhile, the busload of SEIU people who came from LA to protest the law are now celebrating, as are the locals who were already threatening to block government buildings in Phoenix and dare authorities to ask about their immigration status. Then there were the people in Mexico City, about 100 of them hanging out near the US Embassy cheering and chanting, “Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!” What in the world is that supposed to mean?