Showing posts with label ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Head of Investigator in Falcon Lake Case Delivered to Mexican Military
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 13, 2010
Infowars.com
October 13, 2010
According to CNN, the severed head of the lead investigator in the Falcon Lake murder case, Rolando Armando Flores Villegas, was delivered to the Mexican military in a suitcase.
“His head was delivered to the army garrison this morning in a suitcase after he failed to report back home last night,” Zapata County, Texas, Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr. said.
The report that Villegas was murdered appeared after the Tamaulipas state attorney general’s office provided conflicting information on whether authorities were looking for a pair of suspects in the case of David Michael Hartley’s disappearance. The murder of Villegas has fueled speculation that Hartley was killed by drug cartel enforcers.
Hartley was shot in the back of the head on the Mexican side of Falcon Lake in Texas while jet-skiing there with his wife on September 30. Tiffany Hartley escaped the gunfire by assailants described by the corporate media as “pirates.” She returned to the American side of the 60-miles-long “big fishing paradise” that straddles the U.S.-Mexican border after attempting to rescue her husband but was forced to abandon his body when the gunmen opened fire on her.
The attack on the Hartleys is not an isolated case. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, gunmen armed with AK-47s and AR-15 rifles have attacked American tourists on Falcon Lake during a number of robberies in recent months. Gunmen use Argos-type fishing boats and are often dressed as Mexican police. Others have used duct-taped signs to disguise their boats as Texas Parks and Wildlife vessels, victims report. Since April 30, five incidents of armed robbery or attempted theft have been reported on the lake.
Humberto Palomares, a security expert at the Tamaulipas campus of the Colegio de Frontera Norte, told the Christian Science Monitor on October 7 that Mexican drug cartel thugs now claim to own public spaces.
Mexican drug cartels not only claim to own and control public spaces in Mexico, but also in the United States. In June, the U.S. ceded part of southern Arizona to the drug cartels. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said that a wide corridor of Arizona from the border North to the outskirts of Phoenix is effectively controlled by the cartels. In June, a drug cartel threatened police in Arizona after they confiscated a marijuana shipment. “The threats appear credible because various informants were able to identify the officers who intercepted the drug load,” ABC Newsreported.
In response to the situation in Mexico, the Obama administration said crime on the border is down, an assertion obviously at odds with reality. For more than two years, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have been warning that the dramatic rise in violence along the southwestern border could eventually target U.S. citizens and spread into this country. Violence against Americans visiting Mexico has risen significantly over the last few years. According to the State Department, 79 U.S. citizens were killed last year in Mexico, up from 35 in 2007. In Juarez, across border from El Paso, Texas, 23 Americans were killed in 2009, compared with two in 2007.
After the Hartley story surfaced, the corporate media insinuated that Tiffany Hartley had fabricated it.
On Monday, David Michael Hartley’s widow said that she was frustrated by the lack of response from the federal government.
Mexico is now a narco state controlled by powerful and murderous drug cartels.
In large parts of the country, the drug cartels employ up to one-fifth of the population and own everyday businesses such gyms and a day-care centers. “We are approaching that red zone,”Edgardo Buscaglia, an expert on organized crime at the Autonomous Technological University of Mexico, told AZCentral in February. “There are pockets of ungovernability in the country, and they will expand.”
In July, it was reported that nearly 50 candidates and public figures were assassinated in the run up to Mexico’s 2010 state elections. Political murders have also targeted Americans. In March, a U.S. Consulate worker in Ciudad Juarez was ordered murdered by high-ranking drug cartel enforcer.
The drug cartel takeover of Mexico was facilitated in part by American banks. In June, it was discovered that Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America were involved in laundering drug money for the cartels. “This was no isolated incident,” Bloomberg reported. “Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers — including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.”
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!Print this page
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council
Apparently Barack Obama is not content to make a federal case out of his immigration feud withArizona; he just made it an international one.
The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution, America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.
In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention”(e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:
A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass.) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border.
Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations.
The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.
Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.
Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.
When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
1,200 National Guard Troops Being Deployed to Border Will Not Be Used to Stop and Detain Illegal Aliens
1,200 National Guard Troops Being Deployed to Border Will Not Be Used to Stop and Detain Illegal Aliens
The 1,200 National Guard troops that are being deployed incrementally to the southwest border “will not be doing direct law enforcement,” said U.S. National Guard Bureau Director of Communications Jack Harrison when asked if the forces would be interdicting drugs and undocumented immigrants.
“The two mission sets are criminal analysts and enter-identification team,” Harrison told CNSNews.com. “I can tell you that guardsmen will not be doing direct law enforcement on the southwest border.”
In other words, the National Guardsmen will not be used to actually stop and detain illegal aliens trying to sneak across the border into the United States.
Harrison made his comments on Friday during a “bloggers roundtable” sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD).
When CNSNews.com asked if the National Guard assessed whether 1,200 troops were adequate to accomplish the mission assigned by the Department of Homeland Security and DOD, Harrison said, “DHS and DOD determined the number necessary for this request and I don’t have anything further on that part of your question.”
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Arizona Immigration Protests Draw Hundreds, Dozens Arrested BOB CHRISTIE | 07/29/10 03:38 PM |
Arizona Immigration Protests Draw Hundreds, Dozens Arrested
BOB CHRISTIE | 07/29/10 03:38 PM | 
PHOENIX — Opponents of Arizona's immigration crackdown went ahead with protests Thursday despite a judge's ruling that delayed enforcement of most the law, and dozens of people in Phoenix were arrested after peacefully confronting officers in riot gear.
Gov. Jan Brewer called U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's Wednesday's decision halting the law "a bump in the road," and her spokesman said they'd appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco later Thursday.
Outside the state Capitol, hundreds of protesters began marching at dawn, gathering in front of the federal courthouse where Bolton issued her ruling on Wednesday. They marched on to the office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has made a crackdown on illegal immigration one of his signature issues.At least eight protesters approached a police line and allowed themselves to be arrested. A group of about two dozen protesters then sat down in the middle of the street or refused to leave, and police arrested them as well.
Earlier, three people were detained at the courthouse after apparently entering a closed-off area. Former state Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2002, was among them.
Marchers chanted "Sheriff Joe, we are here, we will not live in fear," and among the crowd was a drummer wearing a papier-mache Sheriff Joe head and dressed in prison garb.
Arpaio vowed to go ahead with a crime sweep targeting illegal immigrants. It was Phoenix police who made most the early arrests, but other protests were planned later in front of a county jail.
"My deputies will arrest them and put them in pink underwear," Arpaio said, referring to one of his odd methods of punishment for prisoners. "Count on it."
Arizona is the nation's epicenter of illegal immigration, with more than 400,000 undocumented residents. The state's border with Mexico is awash with smugglers and drugs that funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S., and supporters of the new law say the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.
The ruling was anxiously awaited in the U.S. and beyond. About 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered at the U.S. Embassy broke into applause when they learned of the ruling via a laptop computer. Mariana Rivera, a 36-year-old from Zacatecas, Mexico, who is living in Phoenix on a work permit, said she heard about the ruling on a Spanish-language news program.
"I was waiting to hear because we're all very worried about everything that's happening," said Rivera, who phoned friends and family with the news. "Even those with papers, we don't go out at night at certain times there's so much fear (of police). You can't just sit back and relax."
In New York City, about 300 immigrant advocates gathered Thursday near the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan.
New York City Councilman Jumaane Williams, a first-generation Caribbean-American, told the crowd: "We won a slight battle in Arizona, we've got to continue with the war."
In Los Angeles, about 200 protesters invaded a busy intersection west of downtown Los Angeles.
Police shut down the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Highland Avenue and diverted traffic away after demonstrators moved into the street and sat down at about 10 a.m. Thursday.
The protesters chanted, "These are our streets" during the raucous demonstration. Police say there have been no arrests.
Bolton indicated the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law. But the key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted the state would ultimately win the case.
In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places – a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"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," said Bolton, a Clinton administration appointee who was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against Arizona over the law.
Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday, including a section that bars cities in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the law and train Arizona police officers in immigration law, conceded the ruling weakens the force of Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. He said it will likely be a year before a federal appeals court decides the case.
"It's a temporary setback," Kobach said. "The bottom line is that every lawyer in Judge Bolton's court knows this is just the first pitch in a very long baseball game."
Opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law. Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011.
"Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework," Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, told The Associated Press. "The proponents of this went into court saying there was no question that this was constitutional, and now you have a federal judge who's said, 'Hold on, there's major issues with this bill.'"
But a lawmaker in Utah said the state will likely take up a similar laws anyway.
"The ruling ... should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona's next year and wasn't surprised it was blocked. "For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge."
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press Writers Michelle Price, Paul Davenport and Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix, and Sara Kugler Frazier in New York.
Arizona Girds For Long Legal Fight Over Immigration by TED ROBBINS
Arizona Girds For Long Legal Fight Over Immigration by TED ROBBINS
LISTEN TO THIS STORY
LISTEN TO THIS STORY
 |
| John Moore/Getty Images Opponents of Arizona's immigration enforcement law embrace Wednesday after a judge blocked some provisions of the law. |
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says her state will ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to let all of its controversial immigration law take effect, a day after a federal judge in Phoenix blocked key parts of the measure.
Brewer called the preliminary injunction a bump in the road.
"This is an injunction," she said. "They haven't heard really the merits of the bill. This is just an injunction — a temporary injunction."
Brewer is right. What's next — if the injunction stays in place — is a full court hearing on the merits of the law. Yet, in blocking the heart of the bill, Judge Susan Bolton's ruling could not have been clearer, says Gabriel Jack Chin, a professor of law at the University of Arizona.
A Win For Obama Administration
"It's basically a complete victory for the United States," Chin said. "She [Bolton] regards immigration regulation as a federal responsibility and a federal power."
Bolton said the heart of the Arizona law usurped that power.
Arizona Senate Bill 1070 requires local police and sheriff's deputies to determine the immigration status of everyone they arrest and then suspect of being an illegal immigrant. In her ruling, Bolton said that requirement "burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked."
Chin says Arizona's Legislature and governor were not thinking about how the law would affect foreign visitors and legal residents.
"They were thinking as is appropriate for them about what's best for the state of Arizona," Chin said. "And I guess that's the problem. When we're dealing with things that have an impact on the entire country and an impact on foreign relations, that's why the framers said it can't be about any given state."
 |
| John Moore/Getty Images Tea Party activists who support Arizona's immigration enforcement law demonstrate after Wednesday's court decision. |
Portions Blocked
The judge also blocked the provision that made it a state requirement for legal residents to carry their registration papers. The judge said that is something only the U.S. government can do. She blocked the provision allowing officers to detain someone who has committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S. Again, the judge said, only a federal authority can determine whether someone is deportable.
The last piece of SB 1070 that Bolton stopped from taking effect is the portion making it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit or do work. The judge did let two other provisions barring illegal immigrants from working take effect. She said nothing about the part of the law requiring local police to cooperate with federal immigration officials. That effectively ends any attempts to create so-called sanctuary cities.
The intent of the law — to get illegal immigrants to leave Arizona on their own — is still intact. Chin says he believes that's the real message lawmakers were trying to send. In fact, he thinks the law was too vague to do anything else.
"The law was drafted diffusely," he said. "It was drafted broadly as a test — to see what parts of it would stand up and what parts of it wouldn't."
The law's supporters deny that. One of the bill's sponsors, state Rep. John Kavanaugh, says the state will take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Immigrant Community Pleased
Meanwhile, while Arizona fights the ruling, Brewer said that if only the federal government can make immigration law, it's time to make and enforce it.
"They need to step up, the feds do, and do the job that they have the responsibility to do," she said.
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security issued statements welcoming Wednesday's court ruling. U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) took back his call for people to boycott the state.
Jennifer Allen of the Border Action Network in Tucson, Ariz., said the immigrant community she works with is pleased.
"People are genuinely happy, relieved that there's a great pressure that's been lifted off of people's back," Allen said.
Still, opponents of SB 1070 in Tucson and Phoenix plan vigils and demonstrations, some of which have already begun. Some promise civil disobedience against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's plan to conduct what he calls a crime-suppression operation targeting illegal immigrants in the Phoenix area Thursday.
Related NPR Stories
Arizona Gov. Brewer: 'I'm Sure... We Will Appeal' July 28, 2010
Judge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law July 28, 2010
LAW ENFORCEMENT: Opinion Split On New Law July 28, 2010
STATES: Filling Vacuum Left By Federal Inaction July 28, 2010
Ariz. Immigration Law Is A Challenge For Police July 28, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law
Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law
Published July 28, 2010
FoxNews.com
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
Click here to read the ruling.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, reacting to the ruling, said the "fight is far from over" and vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."
"The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds," Brewer told The Associated Press. "They haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the court "ruled correctly" with its decision Wednesday.
"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," August said.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the most vocal advocates on immigration issues on Capitol Hill, applauded the decision.
"Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional," he said.
But supporters of the policy slammed the court's decision.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," Brewer said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling "misguided."
"The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling," he said in a written statement. "There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd."
The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona -- the busiest illegal gateway into the country -- to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
Localities inside Arizona were already preparing to interpret the law in different ways. The Tucson Unified School District's Governing Board approved by a 5-0 vote a policy Tuesday that maintains the district's stance of not enforcing immigration laws in the district's schools.
The hardest-line approach was expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.
Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.
"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."
Elsewhere in the state, police officials were busy wrapping up training sessions this week. Many of the state's 15,000 police officers have been watching a DVD released this month that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are speaking poor English, looking nervous or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. It warned that race and ethnicity do not.
Some agencies added extra materials, including a test, a role-playing exercise or a question-and-answer session with prosecutors.
Click here to read the Arizona immigration law.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Published July 28, 2010
FoxNews.com
 |
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to President Obama and other opponents of the crackdown and a setback for Gov. Jan Brewer other supporters. (AP) |
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
Click here to read the ruling.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, reacting to the ruling, said the "fight is far from over" and vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."
"The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds," Brewer told The Associated Press. "They haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the court "ruled correctly" with its decision Wednesday.
"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," August said.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the most vocal advocates on immigration issues on Capitol Hill, applauded the decision.
"Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional," he said.
But supporters of the policy slammed the court's decision.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," Brewer said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling "misguided."
"The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling," he said in a written statement. "There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd."
The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona -- the busiest illegal gateway into the country -- to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
Localities inside Arizona were already preparing to interpret the law in different ways. The Tucson Unified School District's Governing Board approved by a 5-0 vote a policy Tuesday that maintains the district's stance of not enforcing immigration laws in the district's schools.
The hardest-line approach was expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.
Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.
"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."
Elsewhere in the state, police officials were busy wrapping up training sessions this week. Many of the state's 15,000 police officers have been watching a DVD released this month that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are speaking poor English, looking nervous or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. It warned that race and ethnicity do not.
Some agencies added extra materials, including a test, a role-playing exercise or a question-and-answer session with prosecutors.
Click here to read the Arizona immigration law.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
U.S. Judge Blocks Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law
by FRANK JAMES
 |
| Jae C. Hong/AP Jose Luis, right, an illegal immigrant deported to Mexico Wednesday morning, gets dressed as he and other deportees gather near the Nogales Port of Entry in Mexico, Wednesday, July 28, 2010. A federal judge has stopped key parts of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect, including the section that would authorize police in the state to ask about immigration status of individuals they stop for other reasons. The partial injunction by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton was a victory for opponents of the Arizona law, many of whom called the law racist and said it would lead to police questioning people about their whether they were in the U.S. legally or not because of their skin color or their ability to speak English. The Associated Press reports:
We would love to provide a link to the judge's actual opinion but the U.S. District Court in Phoenix has one of the less helpful federal court web sites. The court has now provided a link for the opinion but so many people must be trying to access it that the server is overwhelmed. Here's a Scribd link to the judge's opinion. |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)