Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/arizona.immigration.law/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/...iref=BN1</a> "A federal judge has blocked one of the most controversial sections of a tough Arizona immigration law, granting a preliminary injunction Wednesday that prevents police from questioning people about their immigration status. That provision requires police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling, in response to a motion filed by the federal government, came with scant hours to go before the law goes into effect. She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or "for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work," and a provision "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person" if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation." The standard for an injunction is that the party bringing the request is "likely to prevail at trial". This judge decided that was the case here. In all probability, as many legal analysts are predicting, this makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, probably next year. In the meantime, Az can't enforce these provisions of its law. Rightly so, I might add.
Originally Posted By DAR Again if we enforced our borders like we should be or penalized businesses that hire illegals again we should have, then Arizona wouldn't been in this position. Arizona went to a desperate and wrong headed approach on this, but the Federal Government has to also bear some of the blame here.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/26/politics/washingtonpost/main6715205.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...05.shtml</a> Obama is deporting in record numbers.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< ^^^ It feels good to be right, welcome to DAR's world. >>> A broken clock is right twice a day But actually DAR, I too agree with you on this one. Actually I'll go a step further and say that addressing the employment situation alone would probably be enough (through a combination of strict enforcement, and a modification of visa rules to address the realities of demand for foreign workers in certain industries). The reason I say that addressing the employment issue alone would be enough is that I believe that if the huge pressure for illegal entry for employment reasons that currently exists was removed, I think that the current resources directed at securing the border would be enough to actually secure it. If you were able to get rid of the illegal crossers that come here for work, and could focus just on those that come for other reasons, I think it would be practical to catch most of the people crossing the border illegally. And, once it became known that it was almost certain you'd get caught, that would further reduce the number of illegal crossers.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I guess the judge didn't buy into the notion that the enforcement of AZ's law could be done without racial discrimination since you can tell someone's an illegal immigrant by their shoes.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Defenders of this law, including some normally intelligent people, gloss right over the "reasonable suspicion" and pre-emption aspects and dive right into a litany of "this is what the people want" and "the feds aren't doing their job so Arizona is doing it for them." On pre-emption, whether or not the feds are doing their job, and they aren't and haven't been from Obama to Bush II to Clinton to Bush I etc., it STILL doesn't mean a state can enact laws in a area where they have no authority to do so. It would as if Arizona was upset with say, Canada for some reason, and their governor mobilized the Arizona National Guard and declared war. She has no more jurisdiction to invade Vancouver than she does to tell her state to enforce this law.
