« | »

NYT: AZ Ruling Shows Need For Amnesty

From a finger wagging New York Times:

Ruling Against Arizona Is a Warning for Other States


July 28, 2010

A federal judge in Arizona on Wednesday broadly vindicated the Obama administration’s high-stakes move to challenge that state’s tough immigration law and to assert the primary authority of the federal government over state lawmakers in immigration matters.

The ruling by Judge Susan R. Bolton, in a lawsuit against Arizona brought on July 6 by the Justice Department, blocked central provisions of the law from taking effect while she finishes hearing the case.

But in taking the forceful step of holding up a statute even before it was put into practice, Judge Bolton previewed her opinions on the case, indicating that the federal government was likely to win in the end on the main points.

The decision by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to throw the federal government’s weight against Arizona, on an issue that has aroused passions among state residents, has irritated many state governors, and nine states filed papers supporting Arizona in the court case.

But Judge Bolton found that the law was on the side of the Justice Department in its argument that many provisions of the Arizona statute would interfere with federal law and policy

Yes, Ms. Bolton agrees with Mr. Holder. Enforcing a federal law ‘interferes’ with it. Welcome to Bizarro World.

Although Judge Bolton’s ruling is not final, it seems likely to halt, at least temporarily, an expanding movement by states to combat illegal immigration by making it a state crime to be an immigrant without legal documents and by imposing new requirements on state and local police officers to enforce immigration law.

“This is a warning to any other jurisdiction” considering a similar law, said Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which brought a separate suit against the law that is also before Judge Bolton.

Isn’t it odd that this is exactly what The Times says. What does it tell you that The Times is getting its headlines from the radical, America-hating racists at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

(MALDEF’s Founder, Mario Obledo, said in 1998: "California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.")

The Arizona law stood out from hundreds of statutes adopted by states in recent years to discourage illegal immigrants. The statute makes it a state crime for immigrants to fail to carry documents proving their legal status,

US federal law requires aliens 14 years old or older who are in the country for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times. (8 U.S.C. § 1302 and 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), respectively.)

The Arizona law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents.

[A]nd it requires state police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they detain for another reason, if there is a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant.

The Arizona law obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", to determine a person’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona non-operating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

The mere fact of being present without legal immigration status is a civil violation under federal law, but not a crime.

Under US Code, Title 8, Section 1325(a) – ‘Improper entry by alien,’ an illegal alien can be fined or imprisoned for up to 2 years or both. That is what we call in the English language, a ‘crime.’

Arizona’s lawyers contended that the statute was written to complement federal laws. Judge Bolton rejected that argument, finding that four of its major provisions interfered or directly conflicted with federal laws.

The Arizona police, she wrote, would have to question every person they detained about immigration status, generating a flood of requests to the federal immigration authorities for confirmations. The number of requests “is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from priorities they have established,” she wrote.

Isn’t that their job? What are their priorities?

Besides, couldn’t this be computerized? Couldn’t more people be hired?

While opponents of the Arizona law had said it would lead to racial profiling, the Justice Department did not dwell on those issues in its court filings. But Judge Bolton brought them forward, finding significant risks for legal immigrants and perhaps American citizens. There is a “substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote, warning that foreign tourists could also be wrongly detained.

In other words, Ms. Bolton went even beyond the arguments presented by Mr. Holder and the ACLU and La Raza MALDEF.

Meanwhile, shouldn’t "foreign tourists," for instance, who cannot produce a passport or a visa or any other form of identification be detained? If not, what a break for Muslim terrorists. They will have a field day in Arizona.

The law, she found, would increase “the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up” by it. Judge Bolton was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.

Once again, "legally present aliens" are required by federal law to carry their ‘green cards’ on their person at all times. Moreover, are not US citizens usually detained if they are stopped for a traffic violation and cannot produce any identification?

Under Ms. Bolton’s ruling, there will no longer be equal protection under the law. Hispanics will let off for things that non-Hispanics would not be.

Hannah August, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said, “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.”

Again, the only ‘disruption’ anyone can point to is having Arizona police officers contacting them to check if an individual is in the country legally or not. If that is too much of a burden, perhaps we need to investigate the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Now Judge Bolton’s ruling has shifted the political pressure back onto President Obama to show that he can effectively enforce the border, and to move forward with an overhaul of the immigration laws, so that states will not seek to step in as Arizona did.

In other words, this ‘victory’ is just a first step. Mr. Obama now needs to ram through amnesty. This is the left’s talking point of the day.

And this is what passes for “news analysis” from the New York Times.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “NYT: AZ Ruling Shows Need For Amnesty”

  1. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    I don’t blame Mrs. Bolton, I wouldn’t want to be disappeared either.

  2. AcornsRNutz says:

    Since the civil war we have seen countless peices of legislation restricting the sovereign rights of the states, and we have even seen the supreme court uphold these types of laws. But most frightening in this instance is that we are now seeing the proclamations of the executive branch being legislatively supported to trump the states laws. Granted the difference may be legally minutiae, but the implications here are most certainly grave indeed. we have now more reason to be concerned than ever before.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »