Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona "Papers Please" Law

[jsteele]

"In a temporary injunction, US District Judge Susan Bolton blocked enforcement of several portions of the law after ruling they were likely to be found unconstitutional because they pre-empted the federal government's authority to set immigration law.

"She blocked enforcement of a portion of the law making it a crime for undocumented workers to seek or apply for a job and a portion allowing police to arrest without a warrant people whom they had probable cause to believe had committed a crime for which they could be deported."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10607927

[Anonymous]

Lame

If you are here illegal, get out. The politicians will find out soon that all the hard work to allow these work centers, money for CASA etc are not good investments becuase they don't vote.

The people who vote will vote in people who will actually care about our laws.

[Anonymous]

This is a short-term win for the Obama Administration, but I believe it will have negative consequences for the Ds come November. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people in this country want more aggressive immigration enforcement, and this just sends the signal that unless that majority pumps up the volume a bit, the political system will not respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a short-term win for the Obama Administration, but I believe it will have negative consequences for the Ds come November. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people in this country want more aggressive immigration enforcement, and this just sends the signal that unless that majority pumps up the volume a bit, the political system will not respond.

ITA

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The people who vote will vote in people who will actually care about our laws.

Well, in that case Jan Brewer is in trouble. Because she apparently didn't care about the law when she signed the immigration bill. Or, is it just some laws that you care about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a short-term win for the Obama Administration, but I believe it will have negative consequences for the Ds come November. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people in this country want more aggressive immigration enforcement, and this just sends the signal that unless that majority pumps up the volume a bit, the political system will not respond.

Strange that folks who are so hot for laws to be enforced are upset at the administration for asking a judge to decide exactly what the law says.

[Anonymous]

This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

Start with the DC City Council. They decided not to cooperate with the Obama/ICE criminal finger printing and reporting initiative. DC = Sanctuary City.

[Anonymous]

History has shown that during times of economic depression, countries almost always experience this - the population focuses on a particular minority group and tries to blame that group for all the country's problems. It may be a common phenomenon, but I can't think of a single instance where a country looked back on these events and was proud of what had occurred.

[Anonymous]

Wahoo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:History has shown that during times of economic depression, countries almost always experience this - the population focuses on a particular minority group and tries to blame that group for all the country's problems. It may be a common phenomenon, but I can't think of a single instance where a country looked back on these events and was proud of what had occurred.

Many people posting here have been 'fed up' with our crappy immigration system and enforcement policy since the 80's amnesty, through good economic times and bad. I don't think your charge of economic related xenophobia is fair. I've been pretty consistent in my view that we should have enforced national borders and legal pathways to immigration, because that is a long-term good for our nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History has shown that during times of economic depression, countries almost always experience this - the population focuses on a particular minority group and tries to blame that group for all the country's problems. It may be a common phenomenon, but I can't think of a single instance where a country looked back on these events and was proud of what had occurred.

Many people posting here have been 'fed up' with our crappy immigration system and enforcement policy since the 80's amnesty, through good economic times and bad. I don't think your charge of economic related xenophobia is fair. I've been pretty consistent in my view that we should have enforced national borders and legal pathways to immigration, because that is a long-term good for our nation.

Even if that's true, do you really think that it's coincidental that it has come to a head during these rough economic times? There has been legitimate call for immigration reform on a variety of levels for a long time, but only in the last two years have we seen the fervor that we have and the call for that reform to be so targeted and antagonistic of illegal immigrants. PP is right that scapegoating already-marginalized groups becomes common during tougher times and I think it is fair to question how much that is impacting this move. I fully support immigration reform and have for some time, though I can't support this form of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a short-term win for the Obama Administration, but I believe it will have negative consequences for the Ds come November. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people in this country want more aggressive immigration enforcement, and this just sends the signal that unless that majority pumps up the volume a bit, the political system will not respond.

Strange that folks who are so hot for laws to be enforced are upset at the administration for asking a judge to decide exactly what the law says.

That is a pretty naive way to think about it. The Obama Administration's response was aggressive -- seeking a preliminary injunction rather than waiting and seeing if the law, as enforced, actually did cause the harms they are concerned about -- and the preemption theory used to do so is debatable. This is not a clean-cut "what does the law require" scenario, but a discretionary policy judgment to challenge the law on the basis of legal arguments that are, as far as I can tell, pretty close questions. I'm not even saying that the Arizona judge necessarily got it wrong -- that would require a fair amount of study of the cases and arguments -- just that this decision is ultimately far more significant politically, because what the Obama Administration has really done is to say not only are we not willing to enforce immigration laws, we're going to try to stop states from doing so as well. Even if they have a legal right to do so, I think it will play badly politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a short-term win for the Obama Administration, but I believe it will have negative consequences for the Ds come November. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people in this country want more aggressive immigration enforcement, and this just sends the signal that unless that majority pumps up the volume a bit, the political system will not respond.

Strange that folks who are so hot for laws to be enforced are upset at the administration for asking a judge to decide exactly what the law says.

That is a pretty naive way to think about it. The Obama Administration's response was aggressive -- seeking a preliminary injunction rather than waiting and seeing if the law, as enforced, actually did cause the harms they are concerned about -- and the preemption theory used to do so is debatable. This is not a clean-cut "what does the law require" scenario, but a discretionary policy judgment to challenge the law on the basis of legal arguments that are, as far as I can tell, pretty close questions. I'm not even saying that the Arizona judge necessarily got it wrong -- that would require a fair amount of study of the cases and arguments -- just that this decision is ultimately far more significant politically, because what the Obama Administration has really done is to say not only are we not willing to enforce immigration laws, we're going to try to stop states from doing so as well. Even if they have a legal right to do so, I think it will play badly politically.

It is not a "legal right" they possess, but a legal duty. One of the President's primary jobs is to protect and enforce the Constitution. Even if it isn't popular. Are you really advocating that he defer to public sentiment rather than the law of the land in determining how to proceed on Constitutional law matters? Yikes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a short-term win for the Obama Administration, but I believe it will have negative consequences for the Ds come November. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people in this country want more aggressive immigration enforcement, and this just sends the signal that unless that majority pumps up the volume a bit, the political system will not respond.

Strange that folks who are so hot for laws to be enforced are upset at the administration for asking a judge to decide exactly what the law says.

That is a pretty naive way to think about it. The Obama Administration's response was aggressive -- seeking a preliminary injunction rather than waiting and seeing if the law, as enforced, actually did cause the harms they are concerned about -- and the preemption theory used to do so is debatable. This is not a clean-cut "what does the law require" scenario, but a discretionary policy judgment to challenge the law on the basis of legal arguments that are, as far as I can tell, pretty close questions. I'm not even saying that the Arizona judge necessarily got it wrong -- that would require a fair amount of study of the cases and arguments -- just that this decision is ultimately far more significant politically, because what the Obama Administration has really done is to say not only are we not willing to enforce immigration laws, we're going to try to stop states from doing so as well. Even if they have a legal right to do so, I think it will play badly politically.

It is not a "legal right" they possess, but a legal duty. One of the President's primary jobs is to protect and enforce the Constitution. Even if it isn't popular. Are you really advocating that he defer to public sentiment rather than the law of the land in determining how to proceed on Constitutional law matters? Yikes!

You sure killed that straw man. Let's talk like grown-ups, though. Are you really saying that the President should have no discretion in how to enforce the law, including in cases where it is uncertain what the law requires? Of course not. Are you really saying that the question of preemption is so clear in this case that there is no legitimate dispute as to whether or not the Arizona law is preempted? Unless you are some type of expert in federal preemption, that is a pretty bold statement. It is a very murky area of the law.

There are grey areas in the law where the President has a lot of discretion -- I think this is one of them, certainly to the extent that the government is never required to seek a preliminary injunction (itself an extraordinary remedy), and can always just elect to litigate the matter on the merits. The choice to move so rapidly to challenge the law and the tactics used speak volumes about the Obama Administration's priorities, and I think they will pay a political price. YMMV, of course. Will be interesting to see how it goes.