Thursday, July 29, 2010

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. 
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: US Immigration Support


The Born Again American said...

I'll never quite get it through this thick skull of mine, how being in this country illegally is not a crime...

As Ted Nugent says "calling an illegal alien undoccumented is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist...

madmath1 said...

My wife is a Permanent Resident Alien and she finds this ruling disgusting. Why should she do things legal when you have to demonstrate proof, like her Green Card, but illegals don't? Frankly, she sees this as a racist ruling because if the illegal alien in question where Canadians or Austrilian, nobody would be questioning it, but since it's a group of racist, nationalistic Latinos, suddenly the inconvience of legal latinos becomes sacred. The illegals are dancing in the streets and still protesting like they're being so discriminated against, but as my wife keeps saying, they're not the ones being discriminated against, we are for following the rule of law and she thought the rule of law was what made the US different from other countries, especially the 3rd world.

Angie Lee said...

I saw on another site, not sure where now, that this could impede local law enforcement agencies in other federal crimes, such as kidnapping - if it's a federal offense, and local LE has no jurisdiction, then they get to just roam free until the feds get off their asses and do their jobs? I know Dems like their felons voting, too, but this is just ridiculous.

trinity said...

I am totally disgusted by Bolton's ruling, but what can you expect from a liberal but something like this.

At least Sheriff Joe Arpaio isn't going to let this phase him at all. He's going to keep on doing his best to rid Maricopa county and the state of AZ of illegals.

Just a conservative girl said...

It won't be decided until it gets to SCOTUS, because next stop is the 9th circuit. We all already know what will happen there.

Glad to see you back. Missed you!!!

Anonymous said...

There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin.

I live in NYS and was on the shoulder of the highway with my blinker on and a NYS trooper pulled up behind me and wanted my license and registration because he said I made an unlawful pullover because I didn't have my hazard lights on. I sat there while he took my ID and went to his car to run everything. Is that not allowed if I'm mexican?

I also don't understand why they keep saying we need to protect the rights of illegals, they have no rights, and no other country would even consider this nonsense.

Another thing I don't get is all the talk about immigration reform, and it needs to be easier. WHY? It's already easy enough, live here legally for five years, pay the testing fee, learn enough english to pass the interview, answer six questions correctly, and you're golden. And if you fail either part you get a second chance and it will be an exact duplicate of the original.

If those people think our laws are oh so tough, maybe they should visit Singapore, but they probably wouldn't be allowed in to visit and they definitely wouldn't be allowed to stay or granted citizenship, they don't allow immigration, as most Asian countries don't.

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Clifton, I'm not a lawyer, by any stretch, but I'm wondering something. Could Arizona nullify the ruling by amending their SB 1070 law? I know of a couple of situations in Canada where provincial legislatures amended laws to get around negative rulings from courts. Arizona could possibly change the wording in the law to follow exactly what the state claimed was the intention of the legislature, vis-a-vis Section 2(B). It wouldn't, I acknowledge, solve the good judge's artificially-constructed Fourth Amendment misgivings.

Related Posts with Thumbnails