Judge Bolton’s ruling on Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070

Of course by now you have all heard about U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s rulings on Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070.  I see this ruling as a major blow to state’s ability to police their borders.

Bolton’s worse decision was saying that Arizona’s police cannot check on immigration status after a person is arrested for something else. 

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.) Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence w s identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly." 

I just don’t see how Bolton makes this argument, when states already check people for a variety of other reasons after they are arrested (e.g. outstanding warrants, outstanding taxes and fines, etc). What makes immigration status so special that it should not be checked?

Judge Bolton’s concern about 4th Amendment issues also makes little sense to me. 

Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification. 

Permanent Residents are requited to carry their id cards at all times: 

Legal Definition of Permanent Resident Card: United States permanent residents have an identification card known as the “Permanent Resident Card.” The Permanent Resident Card is also known as are the immigrant visa, permanent visa, Green Card, permanent resident visa, and form I-551 or form I-551. While permanent residents are not United States citizens, they are granted permission to reside and work in the United States on a permanent basis. Before the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the requirement to carry the Permanent Resident Card at all times was not strictly enforced. Previously, permanent resident cards were usually only checked when traveling outside the United States. However, now the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requires that permanent residents of the United States be prepared to show their Permanent Resident Card at all times. DHS also requires that all permanent residents of the United States who are traveling to show their Permanent Resident Card or other documentation that will prove their legal status in the country.  

So where is this burden to lawfully-present aliens that Bolton speaks of?  Is she suggesting that even the Feds drop this requirement? Bolton’s rulings will no doubt be challenged and we will see this case wind its way up to the Supreme Court.

Via: The Wall Street Journal

Via: US Immigration Support