Gov. Jan Brewer meeting with President Barack Obama in June 2010 in the wake of the passage of SB 1070, to discuss immigration. Since then the federal government and the state of Arizozna have challenged each other in court over the measure.
PHOENIX -- The "papers please' provision of Arizona's SB 1070 is now in effect.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton signed the formal order Tuesday dissolving the injunction she issued more than two years ago blocking the state from enforcing key provisions of the 2010 law. And she refused to reconsider a request by civil rights groups for a new injunction on different grounds.
Bolton's long-expected move came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that she was legally incorrect in enjoining the section which requires police to question those they have stopped if there is reason to believe they are in this country illegally. The justices said there was no evidence that the Arizona law, on its face, conflicted with federal law.
Bolton's order, though, makes permanent the injunction she issued at the same time in 2010 barring enforcement of three other sections of the law. The high court agreed with her conclusions that those provisions were preempted by federal law.
The judge's order Tuesday, however, is not likely to be the last word on the controversial law. That coalition of civil rights groups is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to again block police from enforcing that section.
In that pleading, they argue that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Bolton's original injunction dealt only with the question of federal preemption. This new request is based on arguments that the law will necessarily result in racial profiling.
So far, though, the 9th Circuit has yet to act on the request.
Attorney Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center said his organization and its allies believe there will be real harms to some people now that the law can be enforced.
"It's going to cause racial profiling,' he said. "It's going to cause people to be stopped because of their appearance.'
And Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that the law -- and specifically this provision -- "has opened the door to racial profiling, wrongful detentions and arrests, putting everyone's civil rights at risk.'
But Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, pointed out that SB 1070 allows an inquiry about immigration status only after someone has been stopped for some other reason. And the governor said she is has "full faith and confidence' that state and local police can enforce the law fairly and impartially.
"They bring their training and experience to this important task, as well as a solemn commitment to service the public, protecting our citizens and upholding the law,' she said in a prepared statement. "That means all of our laws, including those barring racial profiling or discrimination.'
SB 1070 does have a provision that requires it to be enforced consistent with existing anti-discrimination laws. But it does allow someone's race to be used as a factor, though not the only one, in determining whom to question.
In reviewing the law, the Supreme Court pointed out that current Arizona law already permits individual officers, using their own judgment, to question those they have stopped about their immigration status. But Joaquin said what makes SB 1070 legally problematic is turning that option into a mandate.
"What police can already do is that when they have someone lawfully in their custody, they can ask some questions,' he said. Similarly, they can choose not to raise the issue and let people go on their way after dealing with the reason for the original stop.
Removing that discretion, Joaquin said, will create new problems as officers seek to verify legal presence in this country.
"It's not an instantaneous determination whether somebody has immigration status,' he said. "It is, in practice, going to lead to people being detained solely for the purpose of an immigration check.'
But it remains to be seen, however, whether it will actually lead to anyone being deported.
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the agreements it had with several Arizona law enforcement agencies that allowed specially trained officers to determine if someone is in this country legally and then detain that person for deportation.
That means only a federal officer can make that determination. But the Obama administration has set out a policy of spending its time pursuing only those illegal immigrants who they consider to be high priority, including criminals and those who have repeatedly entered the country illegally.
And more recently the administration carved out an entire class of people brought here illegally as children -- perhaps as many as 1.4 million of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States -- who could apply for "deferred action' status to be allowed to remain in this country.
But if state and local police spend extra time questioning people about their status -- or waiting for a response from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- that could prove fertile ground for future challenges to the law.
While the high court refused to preemptively bar enforcement of this section, the justices seemed interested in just how long someone might be detained beyond the time necessary just to verify immigration status.
Paul Clement, the private attorney hired by Brewer to represent the state, told the justices that such inquiries take no more than 11 minutes.
But U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration in its challenge to the law, responded that's only half true. He said it does take 11 minutes -- but only after what could be a 60-minute wait on hold for an immigration official to answer the call.
Joaquin said civil rights groups will be watching.
"We will definitely be encouraging people to call about cases of abuse,' he said, adding whatever attorneys learn to the challenge to the law.
The Arizona chapter of ACLU already has a bilingual toll-free hotline at 855-RESPETO set up to take complaints of profiling and other problems that people encounter because of SB 1070. Alessandra Soler, the organization's Arizona director, said any information gathered will help the legal case against the law.
That challenge goes beyond claims that SB 1070 will necessarily lead to racial profiling.
In their legal arguments, foes of the law said state legislators acted with "discriminatory intent' in approving the measure, a factor they claim courts can consider when determining a statute's constitutionality.
In approving the law two years ago, backers said they needed to act because of the failure of the federal government to secure the border. They argued that failure is placing a financial burden on Arizona taxpayers who have to provide education and certain public services to those not here legally, as well as the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants who commit state crimes.
The civil rights groups, however, contend a review of the record suggests an ulterior motive.
"In explaining the need for SB 1070, legislators repeatedly relied on wildly exaggerated and outright false 'facts,' particularly regarding the alleged criminality of undocumented immigrants,' the opponents told the 9th Circuit. That, they said, "strongly suggests that their stated reasons for passing the legislation were pretext for unlawful discrimination.'
And they said that lawmakers "consistently conflated Latinos, Spanish-speaking individuals, Mexicans, and the children of undocumented immigrants with 'illegal aliens,' ' even though they have a legal right to be here.
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2012
Article comment by:
If we all agree that the financial horrendous costs of illegal immigration have exploded out of control, then the only true answer is to vote for as many representatives of TEA PARTY. Under a House of Representatives or Senate run completely by either the Republican or Democratic parties, nothing will ever change? It never has and never will? By bringing in Tea Party leadership, who are representatives of “The People of the United States” not the special interests, unions, Wall Street, churches or majority radical organizations as ACLU, La Raza, we have alternate future for our families.
I am not voting for Barack Obama, a disguised Socialist or directly for Mitt Romney as part of the elite? However, with no possible alternative I am voting for Romney, but concentrating that the more TEA PARTY candidates gain access by intelligent people voting them into the Congress. Not that the liberal-Socialist-Marxist editorial in the press, will inform you that the Tea is not just white people, but a whole conglomeration of people. Everybody now should know the financial penalty of illegal immigration? Just remember that any amnesty. The Presidents executive orders enact is just another giant magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants and migrants. They are very much aware by what they believe is the “promise land”, that the American taxpayer has absolutely no choice in paying for their entire needs, because the federal courts demand it. Whether its Obama’s Dream Act, Sanctuary Cities, Chain Migration or just plain old illegal immigrants dodging agents at the border or those arriving in America, as an intentional overstays supposed visitor by plane or ferry.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano states it would be too costly to deport the underestimated 11 million illegal immigrant invaders? Nevertheless her agency stays tight-lipped about the rising 100 billion dollar plus figure, which is a forcibly extracted in taxes annually. There are very few issues that are not unrelated with these people who should never be here. However, it all goes back to the inattention of Democrats and Republicans who abused their oath of office, after the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform law with the original STATED PROMISE by the late Ted Kennedy “NO MORE AMNESTIES”. The bill found passage because of this PROMISE to the American people that no more amnesties? Let’s face it has there ever been a PROMISE that hasn’t been broken by those in Washington? That’s why with the voting in more TEA PARTY Politicians, “The People’s Legislators have a much better chance at a filibuster to stop a vote on bad policy as that infernal mass amnesty.
In the 1986 immigration law the Democrats refused to appropriate the money, so nothing was done? Now we have over 20 million + aliens settled here as unfettered illegally immigration demanding the same rights as citizens. The passage of the Dream Act was the consequences of decades of unrestrained females arriving from all over the world, to have their babies on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime. Then hundreds of billions of dollars from then on to pay for free health care, free education and free everything and now under Obama food stamps for all. But why even bother with any tough laws, when there is no real punishment? I am absolutely sure there was no intention from either party to stop cheap labor for Republicans, or illegal voting collections as the ACORN backed Democrats.
If Obama wins a second term there is sure to be a comprehensive amnesty, with American taxpayers the losers, having even a larger hunk taken from the payroll check. And to be honest I am not even confident of the Republicans agenda, as that tends to flip-flop? But what I am sure about is the plan of the TEA PARTY if they can eject many Democrats and Republican incumbents and replace them? It’s already happening and by replacing incumbents in the Republican Party can politically persist that the “LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT (E-VERIFY) and the BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP LAW” finds passage and enacted to restrain more illegal alien invaders.
Not one to be a conspiracy theorist, but something seems to be irregular with Obama’s zealots concealing his birth background, military service papers and even his university history. If you are open to reserving your judgment, go to the TEA PARTY.ORG and you can make a decision on this set of events. If you have a closed mind and vote for President Obama, you better be ready in forty five days to place upon all taxpayers the largest tax hike in years. Of course this will pay for all the usual issues as defense of this country, but other tax funds will be going to pay for a new Obama amnesty, free hospitalization to deliver illegal alien babies, their schooling, low income housing, school breakfast and lunch, welfare payments for the child that goes towards the parents illegal employment cash and many things that are denied lawful citizens and green card holders. Learn more about the corruption and rot in Washington at The People’s legal team at Judicial Watch.org.
As a late note that ICE is refusing to arrest illegal aliens in Arizona, we better hope Mitt Romney wins the Presidency? Then immediately propose Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio as head of DHS and then these travesties of our immigration laws will stop. Period!