20
   

fed judge stops arizona immigration law

 
 
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:18 am
apparently the federal judge has stopped the arizona immigration law scheduled to be effective tommorow. more info to follow as available.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 20 • Views: 5,181 • Replies: 86

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:19 am
@dyslexia,
Wow! Dyslexia, you are fast.

I have been watching for this.... and I heard it from you first.


Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:27 am
@ebrown p,

just got a CNN breaking news e-mail...

where can i sign up for DYS breaking news?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:31 am
@dyslexia,
Judge Blocks Parts of Arizona Immigration Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 28, 2010
New York Times

Filed at 1:16 p.m. ET

PHOENIX (AP) -- A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put those controversial sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and is trumped by federal immigration law.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:37 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA MYERS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 28, 2010; 1:30 PM

PHOENIX -- A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents - including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that those sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigraiton statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

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.
ad_icon

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.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.

The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.

Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 04:51 pm
Well, not quite "stops."

She, a Clinton appointee, punted.

This legal battle is far from over.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 05:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I don't know what you mean by punted- the decision was pretty straightforward and decisive. She ruled that the law is likely to lose in court, and that if the law took effect, it would cause irreparable harm to the United States. There wasn't much more she could have done in terms of spanking the state of Arizona for their racist little law.

The only thing she was ruling on today was the injunction that the DOJ asked for and she gave the plaintiffs pretty much what they wanted.

Sure there is far more legal wrangling. But this result today is just about the best result possible.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 05:36 pm
@dyslexia,

Its no big surprize that the USSC will almost certainly decide.





David
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 10:30 pm
The liberals are doing what they always do - finding a liberal judge to nullify a popular vote of the people, based on fictitious interpretation of the Constitution. It's so much easier to alter law when you don't need to get the electorate on your side. I would like to know on exactly what legal basis the judge made her ruling.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 10:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

The liberals are doing what they always do - finding a liberal judge to nullify a popular vote of the people, based on fictitious interpretation of the Constitution. It's so much easier to alter law when you don't need to get the electorate on your side. I would like to know on exactly what legal basis the judge made her ruling.


Why don't you read the ruling?

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 10:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I should. Do you by any chance have a link?
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/files/2010/07/sb1070boltonruling3.pdf
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I should.


Yeah, like that's gonna help you, Brandon.
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 11:40 pm
@ebrown p,
no, she said it would cause harm to legal citizens so we must not bother the people who are here illegally. The business community has won another battle for big business. Perhaps we can make it legal to rob banks or commit murder when ever we want to like they do in Mexico.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:30 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
I should.


Yeah, like that's gonna help you, Brandon.

Irrelevant as usual.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:34 am
@ebrown p,

Okay, it's tantamount to impossible for an ordinary person to read this. Maybe if I had all day. I need a good summary of the judge's legal basis.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:39 am
I found this:

"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," Bolton said in her decision.

I don't see that this is a legal argument. What law doe this violate?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 05:23 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Irrelevant as usual.


Quote:
Okay, it's tantamount to impossible for an ordinary person to read this. Maybe if I had all day. I need a good summary of the judge's legal basis.


Just as I said, yeah that's gonna help you, Brandon.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 05:55 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Irrelevant as usual.


Quote:
Okay, it's tantamount to impossible for an ordinary person to read this. Maybe if I had all day. I need a good summary of the judge's legal basis.


Just as I said, yeah that's gonna help you, Brandon.


Perhaps someday you'll surprise us all by making a comment about the subject matter being discussed.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 06:02 am
@Brandon9000,
You make the stupidest remarks concerning how your own country's system operates, repeating silly memes that you've heard or read from various right wing nut cases, then proceed to clearly illustrate just how dumb you are and you don't find this pertinent to the discussion at hand.

You must have slept thru your whole grade six civics class.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » fed judge stops arizona immigration law
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/26/2021 at 10:35:35