Post User Polls

Arizona immigration law: Did federal judge do the right thing?

In a major legal victory to opponents of Arizona's new immigration law, a judge has blocked some of the most controversial sections.

While the law will still go into effect Thursday, it will do so without these provisions:


  • Sections requiring officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws

  • The part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times

  • The provision that made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places

By Jodi Westrick  |  July 28, 2010; 1:39 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Terrell Owens joins the Bengals: Dream team? | Next: Do you plan on watching the new season of 'Jersey Shore'?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



So a Federal Judge says its probably unconstitutional for Arizona to require immigrants to carry identification at all times? Never mind that its been Federal law for the entire country for something like the last 70 years, and upheld by multiple courts.

Also, according to this "judge" if the level of criminality reaches a certain threshold then enforcing that law becomes an undue burden on law abiding citizens, making the law itself unconstitutional? Where do I find that little bit of insanity in the Constitution?

With judges like this the U.S.'s days as a sovereign nation are numbered.

Posted by: joeschwind1 | July 28, 2010 2:08 PM

I guess we are just supposed to continue to support the rich of Mexico and Central and South America by letting their poor come up here and get all of the social benefits our country provides. I am not sure what the future of this country is going to be when the Mexican president criticizes an American state on the floor of Congress and gets a standing ovation. Then three Latin American states were allowed to sue Arizona. I am tired of the Hispanic children getting WIC and food stamps. They become legal and will qualify for EVERYTHING. This will ruin us.

Posted by: EFDTN | July 28, 2010 2:10 PM

I think this ruling deserve a big 'Face-palm.'

Posted by: alutz08 | July 28, 2010 2:11 PM

Hum, so I guess I don't have to carry my driver's license around with me anymore - I can just tell the officer (after I rob a bank) that I am illegal and not required to so he can send me on my merry way... Nice.

Posted by: ritab05 | July 28, 2010 2:15 PM

BHO and the other democrats who continue to side with illegals have just lost their re-election bids! Period.

Posted by: crowne2 | July 28, 2010 2:16 PM

So, what's new? A Clinton appointed Democrat Judge acts out against Americans and blocks another law from being enforced against an army illegal Foreign nationals invading a sovereign nation, devastating its economy and bankrupting its citizens.

While the Democrats and Obama promote anarchy, thank God for at least this one law enforcement officer left in the USA. Illegal immigration is no more complicated than this.

"Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that if protesters want to block his jail, he'll put them in it.

The Arizona law, which takes effect Thursday, requires officers enforcing other laws to check a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is in the country illegally.

Arpaio told ABC's "Good Morning America" he doesn't know "what the big hype is."

He says it's "a crime to be here illegally and everyone should enforce" the law."
.....................

Americans will Remember the anti American Democrat anarchists in November. We'll even speak one word of Spanish on their behalf - Adios A H o l e e s.

Posted by: Patriot12 | July 28, 2010 2:17 PM

WE will remember in Nov.
Adios you Marxist buffoons.

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:20 PM

not only will I not carry my license with me, I will not pay my taxes. You Dems have just sealed your fate in Nov. Get out of the WP blogs and see the anger on display...all directed at Odumbo and the other Marx brothers in Congress.
We hate you!

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:22 PM

Bolton's choices: agree to the outrageous, unlawful, anti-American demands of the hussein/holder YES-FOR-ILLEGALS regime, or have her career as a federal judge destroyed. So, she caved.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | July 28, 2010 2:22 PM

Good! The laws of the US should not be catered to appease bigots, racist and xenophobes. The way this law was written, by the conservative state legislature of AZ, it would have created a biased reality which the police would have had to enforce. For those that seem to think that progressive or liberals, yes they are not one and the same, are for illegal immigration, think again. Illegal immigration is a big drain on US labor and a slap in the face for those how come here legally. But we will not solve this problem by enacting a law that openly discriminates against a person by how they look nor by having a requirement that all US citizens need traveling papers in order to go out in public. There are better way to solve this, such as George W’s., temporary worker card idea, which was shot down by Republicans. Remember, it is the conservatives who do not want this issue to go away as they can use this to motivate voters to turn out and vote against the “browning” of America. The states need to learn and respect what their place is in our system and until the conservatives in Washington are ready to move on this issue it will remain, which is just what they want in an election year.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 2:22 PM

Please read below:


The judge 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. In addition, the judge 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," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

At last, the rule of law and reason has prevailed !

Posted by: ellislawoffice | July 28, 2010 2:23 PM

It is really surprising that the judge has stuck down a part of Law which merely enforces the Federal Law. Politicians who talk and take oath to enforce constitution do not believe in constitution. The judges are nominated and hence do have some sort of affiliation to the party which nomonates them. The constitution clearly makes responsible the Federal and State Govt to protect the lawful citizens. The Federal Govt goes against a state that tries to implement the Federal Law and does not bother about other cities and states which flout Federal Law by asking the police not to enforce Federal law(Sanctuary cities).For the information of anyone, when an immigrant gets his citizenship he is told that he/she is always required to demonstrate by any document like ID to show that he is legally residing in the US. Thousands of very well qualified who are married to a H1B holders are not allowed to work and are forced to stay on H4 but if the same person is here illegal he has protection. The politicians of both parties are responsible for this situation because of votes in the ensuing elections. Federal Government has not been able to enforce/implement Immigration Law and prevents any other agency from implementing the same. Both Republicans and Democrats in the senate and the house will never be able to enforce any Immigration Law which will protect the border states.

Posted by: ganeshan | July 28, 2010 2:27 PM

Applying the Governments' and judge's logic, can state officers ignore Federal warrants on the NCIC? For instance can an Arizona officer stop a driver for a stop sign violation, issue a ticket but if he chooses ignore the Federal Bank Robbery warrant out of Massachusetts? if not why not? Can a Fedral judge order state officials to enforce any federal law?

Will the Federal Government now sue the amnesty cities or arrest their officials?

The bottom line is that this is a political and ideological decision by a Democrat judge. Every Federal judge is a politician and dues paying party member. That is why they were nominated. No one is nominated to be a Federal judge due to their scholarship or good character. The same for US Attorneys. The good news is that the anger will be astronomical now and will ensure a Democrat holocaust in November. The post racial President (how ironic), for personal advantage, has taken this nation down a road and no one knows where that road will take us. Thera are at least 20 million unemployed Americans in this country and that may well get worse. In any case the 8 million or so jobs lost are not coming back any time soon.

What a sad, unneccessary, dangerous and ridiculous state of affairs.

Posted by: JoeDBrown | July 28, 2010 2:27 PM

Contrary to what is being said here, the judge's ruling doesn't support being in the country illegally. Rather, it says the state cannot impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens. AZ's law would adversely affect legal residents and the Constitution prohibits that practice.

With respect to carrying papers, the DOJ and DHS said they have the flexibility in law to apply that law as they see fit. AZ can't mandate to the feds how to apply it or any other federal law.

It's a federal issue - not a state issue. AZ overstepped its bounds and the judge gave them a preliminary slap. The next ruling should be even better at showing AZ what it means to follow the law of the land.

Posted by: panamint | July 28, 2010 2:31 PM

The federal law is still enforce. Law enforcement can check the status under federal law. Illegals lose. And now most of us hate illegals and the Democrats that support this.

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:32 PM

Federal law still applies. Under federal law police officers can still check status.
Losers, the illegals, and Dems still lose.
See you in Nov. traitors.

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:34 PM

Legal immigrants must still carry papers. That is federal law. Law enforcement can still check status unde federal law. Same law....
You Liberals and illegals lose. We the people hate you even more.

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:36 PM

He should have blocked the whole law as it is clearly unconstitutional to all but the most seriously mentally challenged (I realize that includes the majority of Americans who support the law but that is irrelevent since they are wrong PERIOD). Control of the borders falls under Federal jurisdiction - NOT the states. So all you who are writing here with your opinions to the contrary are also in violation of the constitution and I say that if you do not like America's constitution, go move somewhere else. I personally have had it up to here with you people.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | July 28, 2010 2:37 PM

Conservatives love this issue as they can try and blame Obama for the problem, though they sat on their hands when they had power and shot down any move to solve it coming from their conservative president, George W. Bush. The Reich-Wing plays on hate and fear and that is just what they are going to try and do on this issue. And you teabaggers wonder why your called racist??

Conservative support illegal’s because they help them get votes from racist. If they did not support illegal’s they would do something about it, besides using it as a campaign issue.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 2:39 PM

The Latino Community is watching and voting in November as well. I wonder how the GOP will do when it is viewed as a group the HATES THE LATINO COMMUNITY? Contracry to what the GOP says, not all Latinos are in this country illegally and voting has now become a MUST within the Latino's in this area.

Posted by: pcca | July 28, 2010 2:41 PM

We don't need 50 different immigration laws for 50 different states. Good for the judge, and let's work on passing comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes honest workers and screens out violent criminals.

And BTW the Obama administration is ALREADY deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants (10% above 2008, and 25% above 2007), and auditing hundreds of businesses that hire illegals (a strategy that Bush almost never used). Obama doesn't stage "Made For TV" raids like Sheriff Arpaio, but he's getting the job done.

Not that you'd ever know that by watching FOX News or listening to the garbage that Republicans are spewing.

Posted by: andym108 | July 28, 2010 2:42 PM

Conservatives seem to think that the illegal immigration issue started in 2008. Sorry you cons, your Reich-Wing did nothing about this issue when you had power and now that you don't you expect us to adopt some racist AZ law as de facto US immigration policy. Any hope of long term GOP control vanished the second that they hitched their wagons racist and xenophobic thinking. Latino's will remember this in Nov.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 2:44 PM

The Latino Community is watching and voting in November as well. I wonder how the GOP will do when it is viewed as a group the HATES THE LATINO COMMUNITY? Contracry to what the GOP says, not all Latinos are in this country illegally and voting has now become a MUST within the Latino's in this area.
=================================

The Latino population wants special priveliges for people who look like them?
This has nothing to do with Latino's unless they are willing to admit most illegals come from their home countries.
Illegals need to go no matter what country.
That is the law.
Sorry the Latinos don't want to follow the laws of this country.
Isn't that why they left their lawless home countries?

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:45 PM

Wow, a lot of hate here. Instead of actually discussing the merits of her decision, I see the following:

*Democrat (even though she was nominated by Kyl)
*"judge" (even though she has been a JUDGE for 10 years on this bench)
*Marxist (the word dejour by nuts lately without regard to true Marxist dictators in history)
*Socialist (even though the ruling has nothing to do with socialism)
*papers (enev though NO standing court decision requires any American to carry papers ...or a driver's licence, when not driving)
*BHO ( a clear reference that the Pres is not American and perhaps not a Christian)

Posted by: cadam72 | July 28, 2010 2:45 PM

If Conservatives love this issue, why do well over 70% support enforcing immigration laws and AZ's law? I guess Obumbler Marx has succeeded in turning the country into a Conservative country after all. Thanks obumbo and dimwit elitist wannavee Dems.

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:48 PM

Conservatives seem to think that the illegal immigration issue started in 2008

It became a big issue when Odumbo chose to fight AZ, a state of the union, besieged by criminal illegal Mexicans.
Your side will lose. The majority hates you liberals.. get out of the WP blogosphere and read the comments on this issue.
Young people who might have voted for Odumbo hate you and him!

Posted by: secjet1 | July 28, 2010 2:51 PM

Conservatives love the issue because they don't have to solve it they just have to get people scared about it enough to turn out and vote. Cons play to fear and offer nothing in terms of a solution, outside of having people carry traveling papers in order to go down to the grocery store, which thank God this judge said was unlawful.

If the Reich-wing wanted to do something about this issue whey did they not take it up when they had power? It is easy to hate it is much harder to work to a solution.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 2:54 PM

Everyone reading these posts should scroll to the one by "ELLISLAWOFFICE" which proclaims "at last, the rule of law and reason has prevailed" with the gutting of the Arizona law by this judge. Where was their outrage over the illegal invasion? Like every other pro-amnesty supporter, they fail to acknowledge that this whole mess is predicated on our laws being broken in the first place. But that's just an inconvenient truth they'd rather not let in to the debate. I'm disappointed, but I'm gonna feel much better on November 3rd, 2010...and again in 2012. This is perhaps the final nail in this administrations coffin. Obama and his crew can't really expect us to swallow his continual ignoring of the country's majority will and get away with it.

Posted by: ddnfla | July 28, 2010 2:56 PM

Check the Federal Border Partrol's official website & see that illegal porder crossings are down to a 5 year low under Obama & that under his presidency, the US has deported more illegals than Bush in his last 2 years & held more companies accountable for hiring practices &demand, not just raiding them to focus on the supply side.

Can someone please comment on this & discuss Obama's forward momentum against illegal immigration & why most want to demonize him in the issue? I realize you may not like the man, but can see progress under his presidency on this issue so far?

Posted by: cadam72 | July 28, 2010 3:02 PM

The judge in this case did the only thing she could do. She has to uphold the law, not bow to public opinion. Blocking the implementation of the more quesionable aspects of the law until the entire case can be heard is both reasonable and wise.

SB1070 does not mirror federal law, nor is it simple, according to a preliminary report done by the faculty and dean of the University of Arizona's Rogers College of Law. What was most telling about this report is the statement that even among Law College faculty, there were many opinions of constitutionality and legality of the law.

For this reason alone, it needs to go through the courts. Relax and let the court system work everyone!

Posted by: StormAZ100 | July 28, 2010 3:05 PM

The good thing is that this is far from over and the more Obama and the Democrats defend their status quo stance on illegal immigration, the more votes they'll lose.

Posted by: Digitalman08 | July 28, 2010 3:33 PM

buh-bye, democrats. You sure wore out your welcome in a hurry!

Posted by: chenvertjd | July 28, 2010 3:43 PM

Two things:

First, while Judge Bolton was appointed by Clinton and UNANIMOUSLY confirmed by the Senate, that does NOT mean she is a Democrat. In fact, she was recommended for appointment to the bench by that wild-eyed liberal Republican Senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl. See, http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Susan_Bolton

Second, no one should be allowed to comment on the court’s decision, WITHOUT FIRST ACTUALLY READING IT. The decision is posted here: http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement

Once you have read the decision, and you have some salient or insightful comment to make, or you can point out where the judge erred, please feel free to post your comment here. Otherwise, post your drivel somewhere else.

Posted by: DCDawg1 | July 28, 2010 3:47 PM

The judges decision is one of a left wing idealog, Where does it say you have to prove that the Feds must have sufficient manpower to handle what they have been responsible for for years. Is that how the judge justifies in her mind this unbelievable decision. Alls Ice has to do is say they wouldnt be able to handle this additional burden. Judges response is OK then I wont allow Arizona to protect itself

Posted by: BobK3436 | July 28, 2010 3:52 PM

This was a no-brainer from the start. The enforcement of immigration laws is a Federal issue, it is not something the states get to do on their own. There have been cases in the past where this was tested and always came up this way. I am surprised so few people seem to know this.

Posted by: catherine3 | July 28, 2010 4:02 PM

I wish the raison d'être of my whole existence was to scapegoat others, and to always be on the look out for a group in society to antagonize.

But then again I'm not a fat, sexually frustrated tea bagger so go figure

Posted by: htruman1 | July 28, 2010 4:17 PM

If the Reich-wing wanted to do something about this issue why did they not take it up when they had power? It is easy to hate it is much harder to work to a solution.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 4:23 PM

Conservatives love the issue of illegal immigration because they don't have to solve it they just have to get people scared about it enough to turn out and vote. What is sad is that there are enough racist conservatives out there that pandering to them will work to their advantage.


Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 4:25 PM

Conservatives play to fear and offer nothing in terms of a solution, outside of having people carry traveling papers in order to go down to the grocery store, which thank God this judge said was unlawful.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 4:26 PM

This is what happens when radical left-wing liberal judges try to form an opinion. This lunatic judge says that Arizona can't check immigration status because it would cause too much work for feds. Yet, she won't let Arizona do it themselves. They crazy whacko actually gives permission for illegal aliens to get work in Arizona -- hey all you unemployed people - the liberal democrats hate US citizens and working Americans. They favor the black market economy. Democrats want you to pay taxes, wants illegals not to have to pay taxes, yet they seek tax havens for their yachts.

Wake up America. Voter anyone but democrat. The next girl raped or policeman murdered by an illegal alien is a victim of the radical and extremist left-wingers who coddle criminals and give US citizens the middle finger.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | July 28, 2010 4:27 PM

"Control of the borders falls under Federal jurisdiction - NOT the states. So all you who are writing here with your opinions to the contrary are also in violation of the constitution and I say that if you do not like America's constitution, go move somewhere else. I personally have had it up to here with you people."

_________________________________________


And failure to do so is direct conflict with the Executives branch sworn Duty. Further, Naturalization is what the Federal Government is responsible for. You need to go read up little boy.

Posted by: JDB1 | July 28, 2010 4:31 PM

Ms JDB1 why was the Feds not protecting our borders three years ago? Why did the GOP congress reject W's temporary worker cards? Before laying the failure of immigration policy at the feet of Obama and a conservative Judge perhaps you should crack a recent political history book Madam.

Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 4:45 PM

Good! The laws of the US should not be catered to appease bigots, racist and xenophobes. The way this law was written, by the conservative state legislature of AZ, it would have created a biased reality which the police would have had to enforce.
**********

bigots, racists and xenophobes? you mean congress, which has yet to repeal the federal law which was the model for the AZ law? and enlighten me, what is a "biased reality"? if you cant talk/write then you'll be of little use in publi policy debates.

when are americans going to stand up to la raza bullies who call us horrible names for asserting the revolutionary principle that american immigration policy should be decided by AMERICANS?


Posted by: dummypants | July 28, 2010 5:21 PM

Conservatives play to fear and offer nothing in terms of a solution.
*******

is it conservatives who are trying to convince latinos that american law enforcement are like hitler's SS? it's liberals, from the president, to the senate majority leader to the speaker of the house.

and is it conservatives who repeatedly say "no" to the obvious solution, enforce the law and put the onus on the illegals to leave of their own accord because they know we will never given them amnesty? no, its liberals.

you dont listen to reason, you dont want solutions, and you dont love this country, because you are willing to divide along racist lines to try and keep power in washington. it makes most americans sick.

Posted by: dummypants | July 28, 2010 5:26 PM

Round'em up and ship'em out! I'm fed up with illegal aliens telling Americans what they have a right to do. And start seriously going after their employers and prosecuting them...........

Posted by: aeaustin | July 28, 2010 5:28 PM

So does this ruling make the federal law unenforceable too? That would appear to be the desire of Obama and Holder.

Posted by: judithod | July 28, 2010 5:42 PM

For all of you who are against SB1070, would you please come and pick up your new house guests? They've overstayed their welcome here in Arizona and we'd like them to leave now. Imagine inviting a stranger into YOUR home (or even your very bed!) -- that's what it's like here. These strangers have been invited into our home. They eat all of our food. They drain our savings. They ravage our educational system. They bleed our social services dry. They commit crimes here causing our law enforcement officers to be extended beyond human capabilities. Actually, how about if you let them rape your mother, your wife or your daughter while they're staying in YOUR home free-of-charge? Or murder your father, your brother or your son because they want his car? How would you like them to kidnap you so they can exhort money from your family? It won't matter if they get the money or not -- they'll kill you because that's what they do. So, how's about it? Let us post your address there at the border so they can come and stay in YOUR home for free. Sound like a plan?

Posted by: solidimaging | July 28, 2010 6:52 PM

If THE GOVERNMENT WAS ACTUALLY DOING THEIR JOB, ARIZONA WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES.

THE END.

More and more states are refusing to be opressed by our government. Kudos to Arizona for having the nuts to sack up and do what is needed.

Posted by: DONTTREADONME1 | July 28, 2010 6:56 PM

With Judges like this who think enforcing the law creates a burden on the system,the laws already on the books are worthless. So by this if 20% of the nation refuses to pay taxes the IRS won't come after us? Yea right!

Posted by: KyleWolfe | July 28, 2010 7:02 PM

Shouldn't the federal judges ruling ONLY affect American citizens?

Sheriff Joe is more than willing to arrest any/all Illegals & deport them.

I'm not opposed to people wanting to come to America & making a better life for themselves & their families, but those that wish to come to America should do it LEGALLY, like our ...ancestors did before us. If your An Illegal Immigrant, either assimilate into American society (speak English& pay taxes, obtain a drivers license), or Adios Amigos.

NO AMNESTY for ANY ILLEGAL

Posted by: Robbnitafl | July 28, 2010 7:06 PM

How are we supposed to inforce sb1070 if we cant ask about their legal status? I say let the Arizona people vote on it that would be more fair then a stupid judge.I guess now I wont have to show my ID if they have the illegals have the right to not be identified so do I..

Posted by: jennifer0000 | July 28, 2010 7:35 PM

Alright, someone please explain to me HOW a federal judge can rule against enforcing already existing federal laws?

Last I checked, immigrants are already required by federal law to carry their documentation - work permit or permanent resident card ("green card") - with them at all times and present them upon request.

If this is an existing law, what is the problem with Arizona enforcing said law by asking to see such documentation during routine stops?

Here in upstate NY, we have frequent Border Patrol stops as far as an hour south of the border. They are "everyone stops and is asked questions" types of stops. One of the questions is, "Are you a citizen?" If the answer is yes, you show your driver's license. If the answer is no, you are asked to present your permanent resident card. As it SHOULD be. Why is this such a big deal in Arizona?

Posted by: mausergirl | July 28, 2010 7:37 PM

If you have traveled to any foreign country, i.e. France, Germany, and etc, you are told at customs for that country to carry and have ready to show to any and all authorities your identification - meaning your passport and visa (if so required). Failure to promptly display identification could, and often doe's, result in being fined, jailed, and/or imprisoned. Not being able to show proper identification in Mexico will land you in the local jail until trial. Try it if you don't believe me.

In the United States, in all fifty states, we (as citizens, legal aliens, or tourists) are required to carry and display upon request by any and all law enforcement agencies legal identification. It has been this way ever since I can remember.

Now, this federal judge who is probably in the hip pocket of our "leaders" has determined that illegal immigrants don't have to worry about being caught here in America and can go ahead and keep breaking the law. Matter of fact, all illegals have now been given what equals to a "get out of jail free" card. This judge, who will get a fat pension, paid for by our taxes upon retirement, has just said that the laws of our country are meaningless and don't have to be obeyed.

For the president of Mexico standing on the floor of Congress and blaming the problems with violence and crime in his country on the United States just shows that the government of Mexico has no control over anything and never has unless it felt like it. Go back home and clean up your own back yard, El Presidente Carrillo.

Before any of you reading this call me a "red neck, ultra conservative racist, let me tell you I'm a card carrying Dem but no I didn't vote for our president. Had I had it my way, another black person would have been president. Her name; Condoleezza Rice. But she was smart and said "Let me out of politics and out of Washington, D.C!"

Posted by: tucan54 | July 28, 2010 7:53 PM

Nov 3rd 2010 ain't going to be pretty for the DEMS!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | July 28, 2010 8:00 PM

So many of the complaints about this decision seem to be hypocritical in the extreme -- particularly the ones that focus on "stolen jobs." I wonder how many of these "concerned citizens" are in the market for the kind of low-paying, labor-intensive jobs that illegal immigrants typically fill?

Illegals are dishwashers and bus boys -- a hard-working, minimum wage labor force that makes our restaurants profitable enough to stay in business. They are migrant farm workers who work incredibly long and hard in the hot sun and driving rain to grow and harvest the food on our tables. They are the people who wield the shovels that dig your gardens; the brushes that scrub your toilets. They exist well below the poverty level, with no health care, no pension, no future,

These citizens are more ill-informed than concerned. The illegals they're complaining about are actually subsidizing the US economy -- on balance, they contribute more value than they take out! When they're gone, who's going to do all those things we don't want to do? How much is our food going to cost?

If unconstitutional laws like Arizona's get enforced, I am counting on the people who are complaining the loudest about the illegal immigrants to fill those millions of entry-level day-laborer jobs that are going to be opening up.

(I hope they don't forget to set up their 401Ks and Golden Parachutes.)

Posted by: leftcoastblue | July 28, 2010 8:14 PM

Actually LeftCoastBlue, according to the local paper here in Arizona, as soon as the illegals started leaving, there were at least five LEGAL citizens applying for each of the jobs they left behind. These are LEGAL citizens of all races who ARE willing to do those jobs. Our unemployment rate has been sky high because of the illegals taking the jobs for far less than minimum wage and then living 20 or more to a one bedroom apartment so they could send their "bounty" back to whatever country they came from (it's NOT just Mexico). The "Americans won't stoop to that type of work" is pure liberal malarky. Real Americans prefer working for a living rather than sucking on the government teat.

How about if we send you some of those illegals to live in YOUR house? They've been in our house long enough and they've done nothing but trash it and bleed it dry. If you want to help them so bad, we'll post your name and address at one of their trash strewn crossings. What do you say to that? You willing to let them live in YOUR house with YOUR family and take YOUR job?

Our food will probably end up costing less because we won't be feeding so many illegals for free. We'll have more to go around and more means it'll cost less.

You can't possibly believe that someone who makes $200 or less a week and sends three-quarters of that out of the country while getting food stamps, free housing and healthcare on the state dime contributes anything to our state. That tiny bit of cash they do spend per week does NOTHING to offset the cost of their food stamps, housing and healthcare. That gets paid for by US -- the LEGAL citizens of Arizona.

And then there's the crime they bring with them. Upwards of 85% of the crime in Arizona is committed by illegals. That's why the rest of us carry guns. We need to protect ourselves somehow.

You want them? Really? You may just change your mind once you get them and their baggage and once your children are exposed to Spanish only classes in their public schools or when your voting ballots are in Spanish because there are way more of them than there are of you.

If SB1070 is so "unconstitutional" as you say, why does federal law state exactly the same thing? Do you view the federal law as "unconstitutional" as well? Perhaps we should just open up our borders and lead them to YOUR house. Personally, being an Arizonan, I'd prefer it if they closed the border and I don't care how it's done.

Posted by: solidimaging | July 28, 2010 8:55 PM

I will live and die, a citizen by birth of this country, and never know the comforts of free medical care, housing help, legal help and instant empowerment given to a group of people who steal into this country in violation of our laws. We have local (Washington Metro Area) governments that give public money to non-profit organizations that actively encourage and assist illegal immigrants to practice their brand of civil disobedience by continuing to come to this country and overwhelm the public schools systems, public health systems and local aid systems. I will live and die, a citizen by birth of this country, where a judge can decree that the laws of this nation mean nothing next to the will of those who break them. I will vote for ANY NON-INCUMBENT I CAN in SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER. I'm weary of this and I need some REAL change I can believe in.

Posted by: TandyLu | July 28, 2010 9:08 PM

We are the only country in the world that does not protect its borders or enforce existing laws regarding illegal immigration. Every single elected official in the federal government should be impeached for not upholding the constitution of the United States. From the President on down they put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the laws in the constitution and to protect the citizens of the United States of America. These activist judges are just as much to blame for not interpreting the laws, but molding them to their opinion of how they feel regarding illegal immigration. Today was another sad day for the American people and our country. Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave!

Posted by: jeiken | July 28, 2010 9:20 PM

I think the judge was wrong in blocking what she did.We have to show our papers when we go to their country or get thrown in jail.Also i'm thinking about not showing my ID when and if i get pulled over by an officer.I think we are close to having civel unrest here in Arizona.

Posted by: roper2206 | July 28, 2010 9:24 PM

Thank you, Judge Bolton, for upholding the Consitution. Clearly, immigration issues are a power reserved for the central government as outlined in Article 1 Section 8, "...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

"Reasonable suspicion" found in the the AZ law does not meet the criteria set forth in the 4th amendment which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

For those of use who actualy care about their freedoms, having a judge who sticks to the Constitution, and all of the Constitution, makes all the difference in the world.

Posted by: DrS1 | July 28, 2010 9:27 PM

You're crowing too early, Solid. In comparison to their overall numbers, illegals really haven't started leaving yet. Once the exodus starts in earnest, we'll see how many Americans are still lined up to fill the floor-mopping, grease-trap cleaning slots that suddenly open up.

And really? Your kids are exposed to Spanish-only classes? As unlikely as it sounds to me that they would be forced into anything even remotely like that, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing you're not home-schooling them. They've still got a shot at learning something.

Furthermore, Federal law prohibits food stamps and other forms of income supplement for illegals. Anyone receiving them needs to be a Lawful Permanent Resident for five years to qualify. If someone's gaming that system, prosecute them by all means.

Finally, Imaginary, I would call SB1070 "unconstitutional" because the responsibility for setting and enforcing immigration policy is reserved to the Federal Government. Obviously, someone smarter than you knew it would be stupid to have piecemeal laws for immigration that are different in every state.

Posted by: leftcoastblue | July 28, 2010 9:30 PM

This judge is Clinton's pet monkey. What do you expect? The appointees and advisors of the past three Adminstrations are look-alike nut jobs that outsource jobs, inflict nonsense like free trade on us, involve us in worthless wars, and cater to Wall Street instead of us. On November 2, take to the streets; a nation wide protest, one that will shut the country down, is in order.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 28, 2010 10:06 PM

joeschwind1:
"Never mind that its been Federal law for the entire country for something like the last 70 years, and upheld by multiple courts."

Sorry, but: [citation needed]

"With judges like this the U.S.'s days as a sovereign nation are numbered."

Yeah those dumb judges adhering to the Constitution. What a bunch of idiots.

Posted by: presto668 | July 28, 2010 11:47 PM

mausergirl:
"Alright, someone please explain to me HOW a federal judge can rule against enforcing already existing federal laws?"

Because States don't have Constitutional authority on this issue.

Posted by: presto668 | July 28, 2010 11:55 PM

tucan54:
"In the United States, in all fifty states, we (as citizens, legal aliens, or tourists) are required to carry and display upon request by any and all law enforcement agencies legal identification. It has been this way ever since I can remember."

You remember incorrectly. You are not required to carry proof of identity. You are required to give your name. God help us if we ever get to the point where any pinhead beat cop can demand your ID for no reason.

"This judge, who will get a fat pension, paid for by our taxes upon retirement, has just said that the laws of our country are meaningless and don't have to be obeyed."

No, she didn't.

"let me tell you I'm a card carrying Dem but no I didn't vote for our president. Had I had it my way, another black person would have been president. Her name; Condoleezza Rice."

...what?

Posted by: presto668 | July 28, 2010 11:58 PM

I am speechless. The latinos possess most of the Americas territories, from Mexico to the Cape Horn and all these Islands from Cuba down, how much more do they want? Please stay at home, work together for the common good and let us live the way we want.

Posted by: atrium | July 29, 2010 12:06 AM

hanshethered wrote:"Good! The laws of the US should not be catered to appease bigots, racist and xenophobes. The way this law was written, by the conservative state legislature of AZ, it would have created a biased reality which the police would have had to enforce"
---------------------
What "biased reality"? The unbiased reality in AZ is that there 460,000 or so illegal aliens, most of them from one country, Mexico (based on CBP). The unbiased reality is that based on that, if one stops someone for a traffic infraction and they cannot present an ID (such as an AZ driver's license or other "secure" license) then chances are going to be good that if they'll be here illegally and that they'll be Hispanic.
Furthermore, FEDERAL law permits racial profiling. The AZ law specifically did not.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:09 AM

Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges! We're headed to the border. Who cares what the judge says?

Posted by: Barb_AZ | July 29, 2010 12:10 AM

The judge 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. In addition, the judge 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," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
At last, the rule of law and reason has prevailed !
---------------
Lawfully present aliens are already required by FEDERAL law to carry proof of their status with them at all times--and have been for 60 years. Can't produce that proof? Then why should we care if you have to wait?

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:13 AM

Contrary to what is being said here, the judge's ruling doesn't support being in the country illegally. Rather, it says the state cannot impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens. AZ's law would adversely affect legal residents and the Constitution prohibits that practice.
With respect to carrying papers, the DOJ and DHS said they have the flexibility in law to apply that law as they see fit. AZ can't mandate to the feds how to apply it or any other federal law.
It's a federal issue - not a state issue. AZ overstepped its bounds and the judge gave them a preliminary slap. The next ruling should be even better at showing AZ what it means to follow the law of the land.
-----------------
So, federal law requires that LEGAL immigrants carry their proof of status with them, but it's up to the FEDERAL authorities and them only to determine in individual instances if they want to see it. Talk about unequal protection under the law. Not to mention a lack of transparency. Truly unAmerican. Just how do they decide whose "papers" they want to see and whose they don't? Isn't this precisely what they claim would happen with the AZ law--that police would detain some but not others?

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:18 AM

States do not have the authority to change federal laws at their discretion. Jan Brewer's response to fed failures is overreaching and obviously targets a specific ethnic group. And the States who got in line behind her are laughable - what's next? States changing Federal Tax Laws? Printing their own money? The fact that this is such a difficult issue and none of our elected officials are particularly eager to tackle it is extremely frustrating. And costly on so many levels. But is this the best a governor can come up with, "I'm tired of this; I'm going to write my own law?" I hope she can come up with a better idea to put pressure on the feds - this plan is a little weak. How much is this gonna cost them in legal fees and lost revenue from the exodus?

Posted by: USA4ALL | July 29, 2010 12:19 AM

He should have blocked the whole law as it is clearly unconstitutional to all but the most seriously mentally challenged (I realize that includes the majority of Americans who support the law but that is irrelevent since they are wrong PERIOD). Control of the borders falls under Federal jurisdiction - NOT the states. So all you who are writing here with your opinions to the contrary are also in violation of the constitution and I say that if you do not like America's constitution, go move somewhere else. I personally have had it up to here with you people.
Posted by: nyrunner101 | July 28, 2010 2:37 PM
--------------
And we personally have had it up to here with those of you who use the Constitution in defense of the illegal aliens who violate it. There is no right under the Constitution for illegal aliens to even BE in this country. And I'd say it's more appropriae for YOU to move on to the countries these illegal aliens come from.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:23 AM

Farreal, all those people complaining about the illegals coming into Arizona, "living off the state dime" - getting food stamps, medical assistance, and all those things that you call "frills", have you forgotten that they're illegal? They don't have social security numbers to begin with, which means that they aren't eligible for benefits. In fact, most of them are probably working under fake papers, which means that they're having payroll taxes deducted but they're not filing for a refund or a return at all because of their fear. There are numerous articles about the amount of money put into Social Security that doesn't match those contributing, and the Social Security Adminstration can't find the people, so it's put into a fund - a fund worth billions of dollars in 2003. I've read lots of studies, and most of them that are non-partisan point to an overall positive impact of illegal immigration. Besdies, Obama is enforcing the rules by having more and more illegal immigrants deported than under Bush - so what can people complain about now?

Posted by: mdguysc | July 29, 2010 12:23 AM

Thank you, Judge Bolton, for upholding the Consitution. Clearly, immigration issues are a power reserved for the central government as outlined in Article 1 Section 8, "...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
"Reasonable suspicion" found in the the AZ law does not meet the criteria set forth in the 4th amendment which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For those of use who actualy care about their freedoms, having a judge who sticks to the Constitution, and all of the Constitution, makes all the difference in the world.
-------------------
"Reasonable suspicion" is already embodied in other laws such as searches during traffic stops. It is NOT new law and there is precedent.

Furthermore, it is CONGRESS that determines immigration laws and the intent of those laws, NOT the President. The clear intent of Congress in the 1996 immigration law was to have STATES assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, something attested to by the author of the Law, Lamar Smith, and by 81 other members of Congress. Mr. Obama is NOT free to ignore the intent of Congress. His refusal to enforce the law and to have States assist does just that.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:27 AM

States do not have the authority to change federal laws at their discretion. Jan Brewer's response to fed failures is overreaching and obviously targets a specific ethnic group. And the States who got in line behind her are laughable - what's next? States changing Federal Tax Laws? Printing their own money? The fact that this is such a difficult issue and none of our elected officials are particularly eager to tackle it is extremely frustrating. And costly on so many levels. But is this the best a governor can come up with, "I'm tired of this; I'm going to write my own law?" I hope she can come up with a better idea to put pressure on the feds - this plan is a little weak. How much is this gonna cost them in legal fees and lost revenue from the exodus?
Posted by: USA4ALL | July 29, 2010 12:19 AM
--------------
The AZ law does NOT change federal law. IF anything, it is this Administration who "changes" federal law by ignoring it or selectively enforcing it.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:29 AM

I guess we are just supposed to continue to support the rich of Mexico and Central and South America by letting their poor come up here and get all of the social benefits our country provides. I am not sure what the future of this country is going to be when the Mexican president criticizes an American state on the floor of Congress and gets a standing ovation. Then three Latin American states were allowed to sue Arizona. I am tired of the Hispanic children getting WIC and food stamps. They become legal and will qualify for EVERYTHING. This will ruin us.

Posted by: EFDTN | July 28, 2010 2:10 PM


----------------------------------------

You are lucky that your immigrating ancestors got legal, at some point, so you can have the freedom to post your racist and hateful, stupid and irrelevant comments.

Posted by: mackiejw | July 29, 2010 12:32 AM

Conservatives love this issue as they can try and blame Obama for the problem, though they sat on their hands when they had power and shot down any move to solve it coming from their conservative president, George W. Bush. The Reich-Wing plays on hate and fear and that is just what they are going to try and do on this issue. And you teabaggers wonder why your called racist??
Conservative support illegal’s because they help them get votes from racist. If they did not support illegal’s they would do something about it, besides using it as a campaign issue.
Posted by: hansenthered | July 28, 2010 2:39 PM
-------------------
Plenty of AMERICANS in both parties as well as independents oppose illegal immigration and amnesty because illegal aliens are, quite simply, liars, cheats, line jumpers, and fraudsters. We were fooled once into an amnesty in 1986 and won't be again.

Democratic elites support amnesty because it helps them get votes from racist Hispanics--or that's what they think. They prefer to discriminate against Americans by requiring Americans to obey laws yet want to give illegal aliens a free pass on such felonies as identity theft and tax evasion.

As a lapsed Democrat, I can assure you that there are plenty who agree with me--and Democrats are going to hurt this fall.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:33 AM


I guess we are just supposed to continue to support the rich of Mexico and Central and South America by letting their poor come up here and get all of the social benefits our country provides. I am not sure what the future of this country is going to be when the Mexican president criticizes an American state on the floor of Congress and gets a standing ovation. Then three Latin American states were allowed to sue Arizona. I am tired of the Hispanic children getting WIC and food stamps. They become legal and will qualify for EVERYTHING. This will ruin us.
Posted by: EFDTN | July 28, 2010 2:10 PM

----------------------------------------
You are lucky that your immigrating ancestors got legal, at some point, so you can have the freedom to post your racist and hateful, stupid and irrelevant comments.
Posted by: mackiejw | July 29, 2010 12:32 AM
-----------------------
On the contrary, his comments are spot on. Obama's claim that he doesn't have to enforce immigration law out of "foreign policy" consideations, especially for the benefit of Mexico and Latin America, is NOT going to play well with Americans this fall. There is nothing "racist" in this poster's comments--would Mexico and the other Latin countries filing briefs be doing so if there weren't many illegal aliens from those areas in the US doing just what this original poster says they are doing? Mexicc itself is "bracing" for the return of illegal aliens because it doesn't want to deal with the costs.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:38 AM

Farreal, all those people complaining about the illegals coming into Arizona, "living off the state dime" - getting food stamps, medical assistance, and all those things that you call "frills", have you forgotten that they're illegal? They don't have social security numbers to begin with, which means that they aren't eligible for benefits. In fact, most of them are probably working under fake papers, which means that they're having payroll taxes deducted but they're not filing for a refund or a return at all because of their fear. There are numerous articles about the amount of money put into Social Security that doesn't match those contributing, and the Social Security Adminstration can't find the people, so it's put into a fund - a fund worth billions of dollars in 2003. I've read lots of studies, and most of them that are non-partisan point to an overall positive impact of illegal immigration. Besdies, Obama is enforcing the rules by having more and more illegal immigrants deported than under Bush - so what can people complain about now?
Posted by: mdguysc | July 29, 2010 12:23 AM
--------------
You've obviously forgotten that illegal aliens can collect welfare on behalf of their US-born kids. You're also forgetting that illegal aliens can and do steal SS numbers and identities--about five million of them according to SS no match letters.

And don't claim that illegal aliens are doing us a favor. First, their "contributions" are insignificant overall because SS pays out $600 billion a year in benefits. On the other hand, the fact that illegal aliens are stealing jobs and identities is very significant for individuals without jobs or whose numbers are stolen. The former don't have incomes, don't pay into SS and will get lower benefits because of it. The latter will find themselves dealing with the IRS to explain why they didn't pay taxes on the income illegal aliens earned under the number.

Also, by your reasoning, we can NEVER legalize illegal aliens because the only "benefit" there is comes if they can never collect benefits. Were they able to do so, they would bankrupt the system more quickly. Sen. Lamar Smith had the SS Administration run the numbers--illegal aliens would collect far more than they pay in because they're mainly low wage workers.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:44 AM

You're crowing too early, Solid. In comparison to their overall numbers, illegals really haven't started leaving yet. Once the exodus starts in earnest, we'll see how many Americans are still lined up to fill the floor-mopping, grease-trap cleaning slots that suddenly open up.
----Let's see. A couple of years ago a school district advertised a janitor's job at $15 an hour. Got over 400 applications as I recall. Were those ALL illegal aliens? Then there's Target and similar companies. A Target in CA recently fired 50 illegal aliens. Americans don't work at Target? Or the grocery chain in the Sw that fired 1,000 illegal workers, leaving 4000 LEGAL workers?

And really? Your kids are exposed to Spanish-only classes? As unlikely as it sounds to me that they would be forced into anything even remotely like that, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing you're not home-schooling them. They've still got a shot at learning something.
----------Years ago, my niece in Texas was forced to stay in a class because the teacher needed native speakers of English to help the many kids in the class who were Spanish-speaking. My sister-in-law moved her to a private school to get a better education.

Furthermore, Federal law prohibits food stamps and other forms of income supplement for illegals.
----NO. Illegal aliens can and do receive benefits on behalf of their US born kids.

Anyone receiving them needs to be a Lawful Permanent Resident for five years to qualify. If someone's gaming that system, prosecute them by all means.
Finally, Imaginary, I would call SB1070 "unconstitutional" because the responsibility for setting and enforcing immigration policy is reserved to the Federal Government.
------------It's actually reserved to Congress, which, in its 1996 law, specifically set up 287(g) and gave clear intent that states assist in enforcement of immigration law.

Obviously, someone smarter than you knew it would be stupid to have piecemeal laws for immigration that are different in every state.
Posted by: leftcoastblue | July 28, 2010 9:30 PM
-------------In which case, "someone smarter" is also going to be filing suits against SANCTUARY CITIES.

Posted by: Ali4 | July 29, 2010 12:52 AM

Before all else I am an American, whose ancestors came to this country to find religious freedom and to find land to raise their families on. I had great grandfathers and a great grandmother who served in the Civil War, the family from Illinois in the Union Medical Corps and the great great grandfather from Missouri
in the CSA Medical Corps. Each generation of my family have served PROUDLY in the military of the U.S. We believe in the freedoms granted to citizens of this country and my grand children and great nephews and nieces proudly serve today. We don't do this to see our country turned into a socialistic, economically deprived third world country.
It is time to replace the current government with dedicated AMERICANS who will stand up for our rights and will listen to the people of the U.S. and vote accordingly. Get rid of the electoral college and go with the PEOPLE'S vote.
Make all government open to the citizens of the U.S. so that we don't have to hear from the media in other countries that the U.S. is a joke because they have a dictator in control and don't realize it.
TAKE BACK OUR REPUBLIC AND REITERATE THE RULES IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO.
"America. Our country right or wrong. When right to uphold her, when wrong to correct her by LAWFUL means."
We cannot expect a man who was raised in Sharia law countries to understand American values. He has proven that he has none except to try to turn the U.S. into a socialist society. He has openly flaunted the fact that he does not like our flag, our pledge of allegiance, our national anthem. (He'd prefer us to sing I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.)We need to replace him with a patriotic AMERICAN who loves this country and wants to take away the changes.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: oldbroad1 | July 29, 2010 12:57 AM

Gov. Brewer should go on the offensive and court challenge Obama's recent executive order giving sanctuary status to the one million Haitains living here illegally. That would really hurt Obama because he is planning to use that trumpted up power to give citizenship to all the illegals if he can't get enough Democrats and Wall Street neo-con Republicans like McCain and Lindsey Graham, to do the dirty work for him.

Posted by: Americafirst | July 29, 2010 1:16 AM

If Obama thought his poll ratings were falling fast, after this ruling they will be in the basement within a week !

Posted by: Snowman49er | July 29, 2010 1:24 AM

Since we do not want to burden our system, why not stop following other laws. How about driving without a license? How about not paying taxes?

Once we go down the slippery slope of selectively enforcing laws for the sake or acquiring a solid voting constituency for Democratic party and pandering to specific ethnic or other such special interests there is no hope.

Posted by: rbala_74 | July 29, 2010 1:58 AM

Another win for JOHN McCAIN and his Amnesty campaign - his partner TED KENNEDY is probably up there (or down there) laughing his a** off.

A democrat biased Judge, appointed by Clinton, has neutered the Arizona law! It just might put her on the short-list to succeed Ruth Ginsburg on the Supreme Court!

In the meantime, the illegal invasion of Mexicans will continue at the Arizona Border and the Legal Citizens of Arizona will go on suffering.

Posted by: musicwizard1 | July 29, 2010 2:42 AM

Hum, so I guess I don't have to carry my driver's license around with me anymore - I can just tell the officer (after I rob a bank) that I am illegal and not required to so he can send me on my merry way... Nice.

Posted by: ritab05 | July 28, 2010 2:15 PM
__________________________________

Ritab05 Did you notice that you agreed when you applied for your operators license that when driving "you" would carry the license thereby establishing the lawful punishment for not having it on your person when stopped by law enforcement. SB1070 made being a legal immigrant not in possession of his papers in arizona at all times proving citizenship = a CRIME

Ritab05 are YOU subject to arrest for not having your papers- oh wait you probably won't ever need to prove that will you so chances are this law won't ever in your life effect you.

So one "type" of citizen has rights secondary to that of other citizens - that sounds a little discriminatory, certainly doesn't sound equal or the same.

Technically- Intentionally misrepresenting or misstating what you know to be the truth, directly or indirectly communicating anything contrary or inconsistent to the truth as you know it to a law enforcement officer lawfully asking for it - Is "obstruction of Justice" and it too carries punishment.

Rather than worry about new laws I am discovering that many of those who support SB1070 would benefit from some form of a refresher or remedial course regarding the ACTUAL rights they do and don't possess as Americans living in America.


Posted by: leonlapham | July 29, 2010 3:27 AM

Had Obama enforced Federal laws on the books all this could have been avoided. That said, I have read the decision:
The decision is well reasoned. The United States lost on some of the issues. I doubt that Arizona will prevail to lift the injunction in the liberal Ninth Circuit. The SCOTUS will have to decide this case. I am on the side of Arizona, but I have read the decision and the District Court Judge has made compelling points.
Although the United States’ Complaint challenges Section 4 of S.B. 1070, counsel for the
United States stated at oral argument that the federal government is not seeking to enjoin
A.R.S. § 13-2319 at this time. (Hr’g Tr. 5:10-20, July 22, 2010 (“Hr’g Tr.”).)
- 3 -
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court
finds that the United States is not likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following
provisions of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law, and the Court therefore does not enjoin
the enforcement of the following provisions of S.B. 1070:

1
2
3
4
5
6
Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2929: creating a separate crime for a person in violation of a
criminal offense to transport or harbor an unlawfully
present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present
alien to come to or live in Arizona
Section 10 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 28-3511: amending the provisions for the removal or impoundment
of a vehicle to permit impoundment of vehicles used in
the transporting or harboring of unlawfully present aliens
Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 87 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 36

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | July 29, 2010 3:33 AM

Given the fact that an extremely low percentage of these commenters know what they are talking about, and that the vast majority are biased on way or the other::

Isn't this a stupid question?

Posted by: dougd1 | July 29, 2010 3:38 AM

We can agree on several points.
1. Very few of the writers on these postings have lived, worked, and voted in AZ for 10 years, as I have.
2. Few have wondered how one comes up with data that can be documented for people who are, well, undocumented. How does anyone know how much the so-called illegals make, or how much money or services they get from the government? None know how much they spend here. So some people send money to Mexico? Does that prove the people are illegal?
3. None would take the work that these so-called immigrants are willing to do.

4. None have seriously considered the following way to get illegals to leave: One could start by making sure that restaurants and other business hire only people who can prove citizenship, one could boycott the restaurants and other businesses where the owners fail to show that their employees are legal.
5. Few have considered that the Agribiz owners are very happy to have them here, and to have the illegals get whatever free services the government will provide. At the same time, Agribiz is publicly claiming that the immigration situation is the fault of the government.
6. Only a minority of AZ citizens have seen that the AZ law gives license to police to intimidate anyone who is brown, and who as a matter of political preference is likely not to be a Republican.

Posted by: jamesrichard3 | July 29, 2010 4:33 AM

Nice work Judge... We need more people like you on the Bench. Justice, such a strange word for so many....

Posted by: 1oldquaker | July 29, 2010 5:02 AM

So, when a law officer in Arizona loses his or her life at the hands of an illegal alien, the blood is now on the judge's hands!

Posted by: HeloShark | July 29, 2010 5:20 AM

this judge did the political thing for obama instead of following the law...
in my opinion, she should be impeached and removed...

Posted by: DwightCollins | July 29, 2010 5:21 AM

So is this where people with little understanding of the law comment on the wisdom of a decision based on ideology?

The judge made this decision on the basis of the supremacy of federal law. If she were to have ruled otherwise it would have set a chaotic precedent - that state law can trump federal law.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue with such a precedent not just with immigration issues but with a number of other issues?

The fact of the matter is that her decision was LEGALLY sound, constitutional and will be upheld by other courts. Contrary to what many of you may believe the law does not equal politics. The law has it's own internal logic that insulates it from emotional populism - as it should.

Instead of whining about judges who uphold basic legal principles, perhaps this should serve as further proof for the need of comprehensive immigration reform on a federal level?

The kind of reform where no one gets everything they want but the kind of reform that proves a step in the right direction? I fear that such a course of action is beyond the maturity of both politicians and voters who seem to think that compromise is a dirty word rather than a word used to get things done.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | July 29, 2010 5:22 AM

Given the fact that an extremely low percentage of these commenters know what they are talking about, and that the vast majority are biased on way or the other::

Isn't this a stupid question?

POSTED BY: DOUGD1 | JULY 29, 2010 3:38 AM
-------------------------------------------

Oh God is it ever.

The logic of the decision was completely simple; federal supremacy. Instead we now have posts accusing the judge of doing a favour for Obama. You have to love the internet; it gives people a way to publicly comment on things they have little understanding of.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | July 29, 2010 5:27 AM

I haven't read the comments yet, but I'm betting that those who are usually with the argument of "Judges must decide cases strictly on the law and not on their beliefs" and "Strict constructionalism is what we want in a judge" are probably the ones crying that this judge was biased and acting political.

Look, I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable attorney, but I do know the part of the Constitution that prohibits states from taking control of federal authority. IT CAN'T BE DONE-GET OVER IT!
And "yes" this judge did act strictly on the construction of the Constitution!! Happy?

Posted by: familynet | July 29, 2010 5:34 AM

We need to respect humain rights, by to get a good immigration,because the illegal
immigration d'ont give better condition to
live. (Thank You)

Posted by: Luis32lp | July 29, 2010 6:10 AM

So invaders' rights trump citizens' rights? WTF!

Posted by: wmpowellfan | July 29, 2010 6:29 AM

I'd like for the President to address the nation and explain to us how being an illegal alien who has broken the law to enter the country and then steals a SS# and uses that number ever day to defraud employers, state and federal healthcare and welfare agencies, abuses the birth citizenship loophole, flies their country of origin flag while burning the American flag is the description of an otherwise law abiding illegal alien in this country? I'd really like to see things from their viewpoint, but I guess I just have a better comprehension of law versus lawless.

Posted by: AmericansForgotten | July 29, 2010 6:30 AM

The judge blocked Arizona Immigration law to certain extents has helped weaken the strength of the immigration law. Illegals sneaked into without going through the Customs and present their legal documents.
In this case, passport and visa are void. We don't need to present our legal documents in any countries? The Mexican and Central American governments celebrated and yet you are required to present your passport to enter Mexico and Central America or you would be kicked out immediately. Judge Bolton is a traitor

Posted by: richarddrake | July 29, 2010 6:34 AM

There must be millions of Latino legal residents of USA who would like to see this immigration issue resolved. They are both Democrats and Republicans. It does not matter.

Posted by: shovandas | July 29, 2010 7:23 AM

When I was a young man, I had to get 'working papers' to prove I was old enough to work. i though it was just another way for the gov to stick their fingers into my life. But this requirement came from years of child labor abuse and was for my own protection.
Now the people of Arizona want to know that the people working in their state are also 'legal'. it may sound like more government intrusion, but it necessary to protect the 'real' people of Arizona. If the Federal gov cant protect the people of the state then its obligation to do so.
Hurrah for Arizona. If you dont belong here then go back where you came from or apply for citizenship.
Easy.

Posted by: movette | July 29, 2010 7:30 AM

As a resident of Arizona and Citizen of the United States I am appalled at the Judges Decision. We have nearly a half a million illegal Mexicans living in the State of Arizona alone and that's a fact and our Government knows this and yet they fail to uphold the laws of our country. We have American troops dying in foreign nations giving up their lives to support our freedom and there shoes are being filled by folks that come in our back door, steal folks identity and then demand rights, while others wait in line patiently to migrate here. What kind of message have you sent them? I'm tired of pushing "1" to hear something in English, I am tired of seeing my country trashed like Mexico and I'm tired of seeing folks from Mexico wave their flag, they have created those feeling because they have failed to assimilate like millions before them. It's time to take America back, this isn't the cesspool country Mexico it's American and come November, our elected officials shall remember, we are first a republic for which it stands. God bless America.

Posted by: Ronnymac | July 29, 2010 7:36 AM

Judges are not "out of line." They are right or wrong on the law. Your question provides no context whatsoever to debate that issue. I'm sure most of the comments will be equally unenlightening.

Posted by: dawn6 | July 29, 2010 8:00 AM

I live in the north east on a farm, my daughter lives in Az on a ranch. After a visit last spring I was so disgusted, I sat on the upper deck in the evening and watched a group of "people" come down off the mountain walk over cut the fence and walk on through. Above us was a blimp flying I was told it was to watch for illegals, so I walk into the house and called the police and said any one watching from the blimp a large group just came off the mountain and cut the fence I watched them, answer yeah but what can we do...what can we do???? I was stopped numerous times by the border patrol, and let me tell you I am white on white never had a tan in my life, I was asked for ID as was all in my car, so whats the big deal. We had a Grange meeting last fall and I asked what would you do if this happened here, the answer was not many of the fence cutters would have walked off my land...it is not here yet but I think that it will and it will not be pretty. The key word here is they are ILLEGAL they have no respect for people they want to walk through walk outside the fence there was no reason to cut that fence they know they are ABOVE the law and that is the problem, this Judge just proved that one now didn't she.

Posted by: Immanurse | July 29, 2010 8:11 AM

I think the ruling is pretty clear that this law violates the rights of people who are here legally, and that is reason enough to find it unconstitutional. As for those here illegally, I don't think punishment is the solution, anyhow. I don't think they are responsible for the problems being blamed on them. When will we stop scapegoating immigrants, and begin looking for the real sources of our social and economic problems?

Posted by: handle | July 29, 2010 8:12 AM

Its time for Founding Stock Americans to realize they are being dispossessed of their land intentionally and according to a plan. Listen to who celebrates this the most in the MSM.

Who does a dance on our grave? Who has contempt for us? They show their hate. Listen to it and notice it.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | July 29, 2010 8:23 AM

The judge got a call from the White House and was told what to do. NO surprise there.....

Posted by: richard36 | July 29, 2010 8:43 AM

She was RIGHT. I don't care if 100 million latinos come to America. The US will change forever. Then maybe blacks can get the reparations they deserve. This should be on top of the political agenda after the elections in the fall. OPEN THE BORDERS NOW.

Posted by: txengr | July 29, 2010 8:51 AM

We need to rid ourselves of this marxist monkey on Pennsylvania ave, before we have to to wade through tanks and spent cartridges on our way to work like in Sarejavo. This monkey dangling on the jew's string is just a hurdy gurdy stealing what little change from Americans that is left. Grinning ear to ear, or symbol to symbol, with no substance.

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 8:51 AM

You Liberals and illegals lose. We the people hate you even more.
Posted by: secjet1
--------------------
Are you a compassionate conservative or a christian conservative? I'm just trying to figure out where your hate comes from.

And for the record, I have compassion for the illegals, but I still think they should be sent home ... ASAP. I don't have compassion for these hate-filled wing-nuts.

Posted by: xconservative | July 29, 2010 8:52 AM

I read Arizona's SB 1070. The bill has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with fighting the drug trade. It has to do with addressing the traffic problems due to day laborers and exploiters that hire them. The bill several times states that race or origin cannot be used as a basis for stopping a person. Arizona is 100 percent correct. The governor needs to sue the federal government for cost recovery. All politics are local. DHS has used contractors to send over drones, cameras, and fences and these have helped little. Those tools need to be used on the federal district. We have a backward system.

Posted by: Peter_Hebert | July 29, 2010 8:52 AM

Your Poll results are reflecting the feeling of the American people, but it also spells BIG TROUBLE for Obama and the Democrats in November.
There is a piece “The Coming Crash of the Social-Democratic Madness” that is predicting with other more significant figures just how well the November election has already been cast. This immigration issue just piles up on top of their figures. Find it at http://www.robbingamerica.com

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | July 29, 2010 9:25 AM

Ritab05 wrote: ...so I guess I don't have to carry my driver's license around with me anymore -
_______________________________________________

The ruling stops local cops from requiring that you prove you are in the country legally. Your little driver's license doesn't come into play with that question.

The law presumes guilt and requires the detained to prove otherwise.

Would you like to be required to carry USA citizenship documentation at all times?

Posted by: tojby_2000 | July 29, 2010 9:26 AM

Republicans love to talk about American exceptionalism but they don't understand what really makes us exceptional. It's not our agriculture output or military might or technological supremacy, it's our Constitution and the fact that we don't stop people on the street and demand to see their papers. We afford due process. That's why the rest of the world admires us. The GOP frequently cites the Constitution but only when its convenient.

Posted by: wmorgan3 | July 29, 2010 9:30 AM

"The good news is that the anger will be astronomical now and will ensure a Democrat holocaust in November."

Posted by: JoeDBrown | July 28, 2010 2:27 PM


Well, JoeDBrown, as the great-great grandson of IMMIGRANTS, I guess I should be glad that "Real Americans" like yourself are watching out for OUR country.

Even a Liberal like myself (and I wear the label proudly) recognizes that illegal immigration is a problem. But it is a problem that needs a sensible and thoughtful (i.e., NON-hate-based)solution. Which automatically rules out the possibility of said solution coming from ANYONE who would regard ANY sort of "holocaust" as "good news".

Such a thought process finds no problem with requiring people to "haff zerr paperss in order" at all times...

Didn't Real Americans fight and win the biggest war in history just so that kind of thinking wouldn't control the entire world?

Bigot.

Posted by: Rhino40 | July 29, 2010 9:40 AM

Such a thought process finds no problem with requiring people to "haff zerr paperss in order" at all times...
Didn't Real Americans fight and win the biggest war in history just so that kind of thinking wouldn't control the entire world?
Bigot.

Posted by: Rhino40 | July 29, 2010 9:40 AM


...well, just make sure that you "haff zerr paperss in order" at all times..., after we kick these parasitic lice and their illegitimate f@rts out of our country. Gut?

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 9:48 AM

Judge Susan Bolton's job is to make these decisions in which we live by. How can I answer "was she wrong or right". The decision has already been made by the Decider, anything else a waste of my time.

Posted by: bestowens | July 29, 2010 9:51 AM

Judge Susan Bolton's job is to make these decisions in which we live by. How can I answer "was she wrong or right". The decision has already been made by the Decider, anything else a waste of my time.

Posted by: bestowens | July 29, 2010 9:51 AM

You, that bytch and those marxists like you can live by her and these decisions, the rest of us have our own plans. Semper Fidelis if I may...

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 9:57 AM

Get ready cause this country is coming to an end.... but wait, whitey its your fault. yeah you thought that by giving the illegals all the jobs instead of the legal african americans you was doing the right thing huh? see your greed and racism causing your down fall. now you see that the illegal immigrants was never for your country and that they really dont like you. so as history repeats itself you reap what you sow...white america is coming to an end...bout time.

Posted by: 5mics09 | July 29, 2010 10:01 AM

Dear "Hared",
I never said whether I agreed with her or not, but your post is only "tough talk". Whether you like the ruling or not "it's the law and you will obey". End of story, Good night John Boy!

Posted by: bestowens | July 29, 2010 10:05 AM

I'm a Democrat & I see that this law is valid. The US businesses have been getting fat off the cheap labor of illegal aliens. Now, when the practice is about to stop, La Raza and their ilk are trying to make it seem as if this law is passed due to racism. I don't care if you're a LEGAL immigrant, but an illegal immigrant has NO right protest in my country! This law needs to stay. And its a shame that this problems has been going on since before the Nixon administration, and no one addressed it.

Posted by: LiberallyConservative | July 29, 2010 10:09 AM

You folks better be careful not to get a suntan. If Sheriff Joe thinks you look too Mexican he'll lock you up in his "special wing". Unless you're carrying your papers, of course. Remind me not to visit Arizona.

Posted by: DaveHarris | July 29, 2010 10:11 AM

Of course the judge was right. This is NOT a matter of immigration policy. It is plainly and simply a matter of constitutional law. Opening this question to comments doesn't invite serious debate about the actual issue (federal preemption). It invites irrelevant hyperbole and hysteria.

Posted by: Observer001 | July 29, 2010 10:14 AM

Dear "Hared",
I never said whether I agreed with her or not, but your post is only "tough talk". Whether you like the ruling or not "it's the law and you will obey". End of story, Good night John Boy!
Posted by: bestowens | July 29, 2010 10:05 AM


...good night weezer, sleep tight...

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 10:16 AM

All most of these comments, and the underlying story itself, demonstrate. is the lack of understanding of the law in this area. Virtually any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that the decision is almost certainly correct.Whether you like it, or don't like it is irrelevant. Luckily, lay peoples' opinions about what they think the law should or should not be, are unimportant because we have an independent and co-equal branch of government: the judiciary.

Posted by: WaterGuy1 | July 29, 2010 10:19 AM

for all of you who dont remember Jim Crow Laws had to fall so does this one. lets get a fair law or everyone gets papered all colors races and creeds. then we'll see how many of you like that bill.

Posted by: tbaynes | July 29, 2010 10:27 AM

Get ready cause this country is coming to an end.... but wait, whitey its your fault. yeah you thought that by giving the illegals all the jobs instead of the legal african americans you was doing the right thing huh? see your greed and racism causing your down fall. now you see that the illegal immigrants was never for your country and that they really dont like you. so as history repeats itself you reap what you sow...white america is coming to an end...bout time.
Posted by: 5mics09 | July 29, 2010 10:01 AM

The greedy white, hispanic and black politicians looked the other way while these illegal parasites came here and f@rted out another state while the rest of us were busy working and sleeping in order to pay for it all. And for every cause there is indeed an effect. However, niether white nor America is coming to an end, only the parasitic white's, hispanic's and black's gravy trains are coming to an end. We The People will ferret out every marxist communist traitor in our midsts, even if it takes our great great grandchildren to finally fill the hole. All of you we are the world, kumbaya, se si pueda, let's get whitey fools better get ready to put up or shut up, because you're going to get what you have all been wishing for here real soon. I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag Of The United States of America...

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 10:30 AM

"I wonder how many of these "concerned citizens" are in the market for the kind of low-paying, labor-intensive jobs that illegal immigrants typically fill? "

They used to pay well. Did you know that in 1980 slaughterhouses paid $19/hour? Back then regular Americans worked in slaughterhouses. Now illegal immigrants are willing to do those jobs for $4 an hour.

Illegal immigration is imported outsourcing. In many cases, it is imported slavery.

Posted by: princeps2 | July 29, 2010 10:31 AM

for all of you who dont remember Jim Crow Laws had to fall so does this one. lets get a fair law or everyone gets papered all colors races and creeds. then we'll see how many of you like that bill.
Posted by: tbaynes | July 29, 2010 10:27 AM


...Jim Crow didn't mirror Federal law, Arizona's law does, and these jews and hispanics can link their subversion to the black struggle all that they want, blacks were citizens, and the 14th Admendment saw to that. The 14th Amendment does apply to these border criminals and their illegitimate f@rts.

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 10:34 AM

For all the Far Left folks that are commenting here and who can't seem to put aside their own ideology to view this matter openly, the voting, as of 10:30, stands at 74% for "No".

Poll after poll, even on left leaning sites like this one, overwhelming support the AZ law. The American people continue to speak out, however our current President, Liberal judges, and the Democrat lead Congress refuse to listen.

After the November elections they probably will wish they had.

Posted by: Section505203 | July 29, 2010 10:36 AM

For all of you liberals who are hiding behind the constitution, do some research on what is really happening in AZ? Have an illegal T-Bone your car. You get sent to the hospital, you have to pay the bills for yourself and your car. You know why? The illegal who hit you has no insurance; no drivers license. Yes he gets a ticket at the scene. Do they ever show up for court,,,,heck no. They are never tracked down because they used a fake name. This happens everyday. Let alone this disburbing link ... http://www.csi.org This is what is happening to our beautiful state. It has got to stop; maybe it is time to change the constitution then.

Posted by: fedup57 | July 29, 2010 10:54 AM

Sorry about my previous post, link should have been cis.org.

Posted by: fedup57 | July 29, 2010 10:56 AM

We are talking about an issue of constitutional law about which almost Americans, including myself, are almost totally ignorant and, therefore, we are unqualified to know if the judge made the right call. Unfortunately, even the ignorant and illiterate have the right to their opinion as well as to vote.

But how can anyone think that having a patchwork of 50 different immigration policies and making racing profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic the "law of thye land" is right...except racists and nitwits?

The police can't keep up with their jobs as it is; this is a HUGE, new unfunded mandate at a time when many Americans are unwilling to taxed, and the Republican-Tea Party's main tactic is to sow fear and anarchy as the road to power.

But, of course, white and black criminals, love the law since by making being brown a crime it takes some of the heat off them.

And I notice that no one is talking about the mistaken ID'sing of two young women in a car crash in Arizona involved two Hispanic females. Arizona authorities didn't get the ID's right; they simply didn't think it was worth their effort. Two brown faces in a car crash? Who cares.

Posted by: jjedif | July 29, 2010 10:58 AM

Contrary to what is being said here, the judge's ruling doesn't support being in the country illegally. Rather, it says the state cannot impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens.
AZ's law would adversely affect legal residents and the Constitution prohibits that practice.
-----------------
Well, that is speculation and not fact. Certainly if the law did actually impose a burden on legal residents then they could sue to overturn it. But a law cannot be ruled out of court merely because someone speculates as to what the effect WOULD be.
-----------------

With respect to carrying papers, the DOJ and DHS said they have the flexibility in law to apply that law as they see fit. AZ can't mandate to the feds how to apply it or any other federal law.
It's a federal issue - not a state issue. AZ overstepped its bounds and the judge gave them a preliminary slap. The next ruling should be even better at showing AZ what it means to follow the law of the land.
--------------
Suppose you come home and find someone breaking into your house. Can you stop him? Or is it the case that this is a matter for the police and THE POLICE CAN SUE YOU IF YOU STOP THE INTRUDER?

It is Obama's duty to enforce federal law. He cannot refuse to enforce federal law and then sue to prevent the state of Arizona from enforcing it.
---------------
Posted by: panamint
--------------

Posted by: rohit57 | July 29, 2010 11:02 AM

For all the Far Left folks that are commenting here and who can't seem to put aside their own ideology to view this matter openly, the voting, as of 10:30, stands at 74% for "No".
Poll after poll, even on left leaning sites like this one, overwhelming support the AZ law. The American people continue to speak out, however our current President, Liberal judges, and the Democrat lead Congress refuse to listen.
After the November elections they probably will wish they had.
Posted by: Section505203
-----------------
This is what troubles me. Obama has done something stupid which is bound to help the Tea party. But the Tea party has no program and there is no way they can run the country.

The country is best run by reasonable Democrats. But between unreasonable Democrats as the current crowd are, and Republicans, there is not much choice.

Posted by: rohit57 | July 29, 2010 11:06 AM

Being brown isn't a crime, but being brown and here illegally is and any offspring of an illegal will soon be. We will fight for our country, just like these browns should be fighting for theirs. And if you are brown and born here illegally, you're brown and illegal.

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 11:06 AM

It is disgraceful for supporters of this law to denigrate Judge Bolton personally. It will be appealed, and that appeal will be based on sound Constitutional principles.

A judiciary needs to be independent of passing political whim -- isn't that what the Robert's court taught us? I find many comments disturbing in their misunderstanding of the ruling, and the belief that the public's will has anything to do with Constitutional interpretation.

Art. I, VIII: "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Congress didn't authorize AZ's laws, and those laws will likely force the hand of ICE and DHS policy. This law is popular because we think it will FORCE the DHS and ICE to deal with the situation. We WANT to correct their lax attitude towards enforcement. But we cannot allow AZ, TX, Ca, and other states to decide themselves how much the Federal government will spend on enforcement. To do so will likely undermine the "Uniform Rule of Naturalization" in the country.

Remember: 12 years of Republican Congresses (from 1994 to 2006) left us no farther along the immigration debate than the years of Democratic Congresses. Both fail if citizens are passive. The problem is not Congress itself. If you want to change enforcement, don't let them push their Constitutional responsibilities onto the states, but hold your representatives accountable at the ballot box.

Posted by: ledirigible | July 29, 2010 11:11 AM

Arizona would look like Alabama and Mississippi back in the days of segregation if the Arizona law goes fully into effect.

Someone who just looks Hispanic would be subject to questioning and proving the legality of their presence. Have we gone to the point that we will require all citizens to carry id? Because what we are saying its that every American who looks Hispanic will need to do that or face the possibility of detention.

Try telling those gun toting rightists who join survivalist groups and practice military maneuvers that they could be held without a warrant while their citizenship is proven. We would have a revolution. Yet, some appear to be willing to apply those rules to US citizens who look Hispanic.

I grew up in the segregated South folks, where just looking Black was a license to harrassment. The Arizona law legalizes disparate treatment of a particular group, just as old Jim Crow laws did in the South.


Posted by: amelia45 | July 29, 2010 11:12 AM

...I grew up in the segregated South folks, where just looking Black was a license to harrassment. The Arizona law legalizes disparate treatment of a particular group, just as old Jim Crow laws did in the South.


Posted by: amelia45 | July 29, 2010 11:12 AM


What about the rest of us who grew up in the same Jim Crow south, whose family members were harmed because they stood for being an American citizen, and many paid the ultimate price for it. Fought in every war, from Crispus Attucks on down, to proclaim and aspire to be American. Jim Crow wasn't the law of the land, but Arixona's immigration law mirrors fedreal law, so who gives a rat's azz about an hispanic or an african or a carribean or an asian or a european who is here illegally, and whose children were born here illegally. Too many blacks suffer economically from these same hispanics who don't give a d@mn about being an American, because we wouldn't need any of this telemundo se si pueda bull**** and spanish signs in the MVA if they did. Screw them, because they are royally screwing us.

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 11:25 AM

A wicked and hateful law has been suspended. A plank in the new American Fascist Party has been crippled. Who could find fault with this?

Posted by: irkulyen | July 29, 2010 11:31 AM

A wicked and hateful law has been suspended. A plank in the new American Fascist Party has been crippled. Who could find fault with this?
Posted by: irkulyen | July 29, 2010 11:31 AM


You jews can yell fascist all you want, we know that America is your last place of refuge, and you will destroy it if you can't control it. We know that these hispanics will be the donkeys that you are and will ride, just like you used to ride most blacks.

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 11:36 AM

During the Reagan presidency, the Congress passed and he signed into law a law that gave Amnesty to all illagals who had resided in the country for a specific amount of time. Included in the law was a provision to secure our borders.

The Result of the law was that millions received Amnesty, but the borders were not secured. Others outside the U.S. thought it would give them an opportunity to get U.S. citizenship if they came into the country as illegal. As a result, we have far more illegal aliens today than at the time Amnesty was given by the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan.

I am a New Mexico resident that has watched my town be destroyed by illigals. My mother's neighborhood, where she had lived most of her life, became so dangerous we had to move her. She became the only non-latino in her neighborhood and most of them were illegals.

I've watched the schools change to 62 percent latino. When Regan became president, New Mexico schools were some of the best in the ocuntry. Now it is 49th in the United States.

I have an idea. Arizona should place buses near the illegal border crossings. Load them onto buses. When the bus is almost full, transport the illegals to distant states like Michigan, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Washington, DC or any place who wants to give them Amnesty. Stop near a restraunt and unload the bus. Then drive off and leave them. It would take them a long time to work there way back to Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. It would probably require ten buses to efficiently move all coming across now.

Believe me, my anger at a lack of concern by the government did not begin with Obama's administration. We in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, watching the destruction of our neighborhoods, schools and entire community, were just as angry with Bush and Clinton.

Our children now have to speak Spanish to get a job in New Mexico.

Posted by: npoteatday | July 29, 2010 11:50 AM

The checking of immigration status will be fair ONLY if ALL people have to have ID to prove they are citizens. How many Canadians or Europeans, of the white race of course, would have to carry their papers proving that they are here legally?

Posted by: janye1 | July 29, 2010 12:08 PM

Obama has now put illegal aliens before American citizens all to get the Hispanic vote. If there has ever been a more crass and cynical President in our history I am unaware of who it might be. 70% of the nation agrees with the Arizona law but then most of the nation did not want Obama care either or the stimulus and Obama ignored the wishes of the people. This guy works for us ALL of us not just minorities and unions!!!If the Federal government was doing it's job on the border it would be another story. When 450,000 illegals cross into Arizona in one year, they have every right with whatever means to kick these people out.Mexicans send 6 billion dollars every year back to Mexico and take advantage of our schools and hospitals while here. This is not money spent here. They are a huge burden on Arizona and other border states.

Posted by: katie6 | July 29, 2010 12:18 PM

Just because a law is popular in some quarters doesn't mean it's constitutional. What the judge did was legal and proper. It just wasn't 'popular.'

I doubt the law will pass constitutional muster.

Posted by: cfeher | July 29, 2010 12:22 PM


Wow how much hate, you guys really hate Mexicans, I wish they would all disappear and just appear back in Mexico. I wonder who would do all their jobs, all those unwanted nasty disgusting jobs, YOU? Did you know there are many crops being lost because there is nobody to pick em up, I'm sure somebody will com around to that, I mean who wouldn't want to work 14 hours a day for minimum wage under the sun without being paid extra for overtime. Just don't complain when one day you go to Wal-Mart and your tomatoes are 10 dollars a pound.

Posted by: jvillarreal1 | July 29, 2010 12:25 PM

When you get in an accident what is the first thing that happens? You are asked to produce your drivers license and registration and in Europe your passport. Does this ruling mean that if a policeman stops a speeding van packed with Mexicans and no one has a drivers license or any form of ID, he is supposed to give the unlicensed driver a ticket for driving with out a license and send him on his way? What kind of liberal insanity is this???

Posted by: katie6 | July 29, 2010 12:28 PM

It is really amusing to read Teabaggers comments on here. Everyone getting their tinfoil hats in a bunch, pontificating on law and the constitution. Yet, I'm curious about all these legal "experts" who post on here; where they earned their law degrees, etc.

I guess it doesn't matter whether or not her decision was based on law. The focus is that she disagreed with the Tea Nutbags, and so now they can start hurling invective at her.

Posted by: obx2004 | July 29, 2010 12:32 PM

wtf. The judge was totally wrong!!! The requirement to carry identification papers was very, very effective in Germany during the 30's and 40's.

Posted by: mcm7_44 | July 29, 2010 12:34 PM

Wow how much hate, you guys really hate Mexicans, I wish they would all disappear and just appear back in Mexico. I wonder who would do all their jobs, all those unwanted nasty disgusting jobs, YOU? Did you know there are many crops being lost because there is nobody to pick em up, I'm sure somebody will com around to that, I mean who wouldn't want to work 14 hours a day for minimum wage under the sun without being paid extra for overtime. Just don't complain when one day you go to Wal-Mart and your tomatoes are 10 dollars a pound.

Posted by: jvillarreal1 | July 29, 2010 12:25 PM


...we'll get back to you after all of these parasites and their illegitimate f@rts are long gone...

Posted by: hared | July 29, 2010 12:36 PM

I don't understand this at all. I'm retired NYPD and we enforced Federal Law all the time. I issued summons to Truckers for violations of Federal Driver Safety and Equipment Regulations, NY State judges fined the induviduals and companies subsatantial amounts of money. Our arrest reports had a box that the officer could check to notify INS (Immigration) of suspected deportable immigrants. What has changed? Just enforce the existing Federal Law.

Posted by: rethwysgt | July 29, 2010 12:46 PM

The Arizona Trooper says "Yes sir, I did pull you over for the busted tail light, but then I noticed that Timmy Horton's wrapper on your center console. Since you can't produce your citizenship papers, I'm going to assume you are a Canadian who is in the country illegally. I'm going to be taking you to jail until we can sort this out."

There are a great many of us who look just like Canadians. Think about that.

Posted by: MrSunshine45 | July 29, 2010 12:48 PM

I am just amazed at the arrogance of illegals in this country. They have absolutely no respect for the laws of this nation. They think they have the right to be here - even the illegals who've been here for years and who've never been in trouble. What other country in the world would be so stupid. They all need to leave - and, if they want to come back, do it legally.

Posted by: georges2 | July 29, 2010 1:08 PM

The xenophobia dripping from some of the replies in this thread is just... depressing.

Posted by: brickerd | July 29, 2010 1:25 PM

I am just amazed at the arrogance of illegals in this country. They have absolutely no respect for the laws of this nation. They think they have the right to be here - even the illegals who've been here for years and who've never been in trouble. What other country in the world would be so stupid. They all need to leave - and, if they want to come back, do it legally.
Posted by: georges2 | July 29, 2010 1:08 PM
_______________________________________

I'll bet the Native tribes feel exactly the same way about us!

Posted by: obx2004 | July 29, 2010 1:39 PM

People we brought this on ourselves by permitting a low birth rate of middle america to happen. We let the rich escape taxes - we want cheap gasoline and we don't want to train labor. So we get cheap semi-skilled non-english labor from central america - the children become a burden because they have no skills and their parents are not capable of transferring the english language to them.

Restrict Row B VS Wade to only cases where the mother's live is threatened and give more tax breaks to the middle class for children and end anchor babies. Born in america and both parents illegal - the child is an immigrant. Sounds harsh but we already have 45 to 48 million illegal immigrants and they is no fair way to make the law retroactive.

Posted by: agapn9 | July 29, 2010 1:58 PM

WOW! A federal judge that advocates breaking the law. Does this judge know how that offends us law abiding citizens! This is the kind of thinking that lead us to 9.11. Does this judge know how this action offends the survivors of 9.11, relatives of those who died on 9.11, and relatives of those who have lost their lives or those that have lost limbs to defend this country from harm? I say again WOW!

Posted by: lenawilli | July 29, 2010 1:59 PM

So when local police suspect someone of breaking any federal law they should stand down? How about a suspected terrorist instead of an illegal alien?

Posted by: lauther266 | July 29, 2010 2:17 PM

This is one of the most irresponsible polls I've seen. Nobody, particularly non-lawyers, who haven't at least read the briefs can have a reasonable opinion of the judge's decision, which, after all, only holds things in current status until the case as a whole is decided. It's the sort of poll that encourages people to think they can have valid opinions on the merits of law matters far beyond their purview.

BTW, I', sorry the judge enjoined the law. I simply can't comment on whether the judge "did the right thing".

Posted by: captcoley | July 29, 2010 2:21 PM

npoteatday:
"I have an idea. Arizona should place buses near the illegal border crossings. Load them onto buses."

I have an idea. Why don't you get all Arizona businesses to comply with the law that requires them to check the legal status of job applicants? Right now, only about 1/3 do. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-employers-ignoring-e-verify.html)

If there was less demand for cheap labor, there'd be less illegal immigration.

Posted by: presto668 | July 29, 2010 2:30 PM

Just because a law is popular in some quarters doesn't mean it's constitutional. What the judge did was legal and proper. It just wasn't 'popular.'
I doubt the law will pass constitutional muster.
Posted by: cfeher | July 29, 2010 12:22 PM

How on earth can it be unconstitutional for a state to enforce Federal law? Local law enforcement officers enforce Federal drug laws and interstate trucking laws every day. What the judge did was stupid. By bringing the lawsuit that led to this ruling, the Obama administration is saying that it's no longer illegal to be illegal. Think about that!

Posted by: JohnV111a | July 29, 2010 2:32 PM

Captcoley: Exactly! I asked earlier what sort of law degrees did many of the commenters earn to be able to expound on legal issues that a sitting judge couldn't address. And to the person who was angry that she ruled as she did despite some 70% approval rating of the law that were to take effect. Um, I don't think judges are bound by polling numbers.

Posted by: obx2004 | July 29, 2010 2:33 PM

Mr Hared. What part of American history did you miss. the separate but equal schools and busing,segregated military, black and white water fountains,civil right blacks had to get bargained for in the sixties. the us government turned a blind eye to all of that. Then Good Americans of all races stood up and against this injustice. even today I make 100k plus as a Black American.Im stopped and questioned why and where im in certain areas of our nations capitol.who truck are you in why the color of my skin and race.now there

Posted by: tbaynes | July 29, 2010 2:39 PM

An undue burden on the government to uphold the laws? Well it is an UNDUE burden on us as taxpayers to pay for what it is costing us for all the ILLEGAL aliens that are here..breaking our laws! I do not hate latinos but I hate anyone who has snuck into my country illegally and is gaming the system. This judge should be ashamed of herself and should be removed as should any president of our country who was NOT born in the USA!

Posted by: katesgram | July 29, 2010 2:43 PM

Take a look at those poll results! And to think the W.P. is pretty much known as liberal publication with a liberal readership! The majority of Americans, despite their political backround, are sick and tired of the federal government's failure to handle illegal immigration. It's not a political thing: Clinton, Bush, & Obama have all done an extremely poor job in this arena. The Arizona law is just an outgrowth of the frustration most Americans feel about the federal government not doing their job.

Posted by: clfrdj | July 29, 2010 2:57 PM

A response to a couple of comments:

"....I wonder who would do all their jobs, all those unwanted nasty disgusting jobs, YOU?"

"...Once the exodus starts in earnest, we'll see how many Americans are still lined up to fill the floor-mopping, grease-trap cleaning slots that suddenly open up...."

So that is your position, protecting the right of illegal immigrants to do demeaning, humiliating, filthy, inhuman jobs not fit for an animal? And you consider that the moral "high ground"? I have a hard time holding that up as an admirable standard.

I think both sides are over-reacting. As Ms. Sherrod was trying to tell us, this is not an issue of ethnicity, as usual it's about rich-vs-poor. Seems to me that nothing ever happens on this issue because some powerful business owners of ALL political party affiliations want access to low-wage workers. Shadow "employees" scared of being deported work dirt cheap - and drive overall prevailing wages of legal workers down as a side benefit to unethical business owners.

Even as a moderate Democrat, I would think twice before dismissing an Arizona law supported by a super-majority of the citizens of that state. Think about it - that must, by definition, include many political progressives in AZ, there must be something going on there that outsiders don't understand. I have heard anecdotally that this is all becoming less about undocumented workers than it is about Mexico's drug war's deadly violence spilling into neighboring U.S. states, is this true?

I want to encourage a diverse, hard-working, responsible population in the U.S., but if you think the way to get there is having people of ALL countries sneaking in to have babies just to make them U.S. citizens - and that we should just look the other way while illegals leapfrog over those who follow the rules, as dysfunctional as those rules may be - I think you're wrong. This is a big mess.

The Justice Dept challenge to the AZ law will obviously go to the Supreme Court, and that's fine. That's how we do things in this country, pass laws and then validate them in practice through the courts. BUT to those who think this particular Court will rule cleanly against AZ - I doubt that's gonna happen.

Posted by: davidwatching | July 29, 2010 2:59 PM

Re;"This judge should be ashamed of herself and should be removed as should any president of our country who was NOT born in the USA!" by katesgram.

Why should the judge be removed?


As for the president. are you talking about a president in particular? all our presidents have been born in the USA. Our current president, Obama was born in Hawaii, a state of the USA.

.


Posted by: janye1 | July 29, 2010 3:05 PM

For all the Far Left folks that are commenting here and who can't seem to put aside their own ideology to view this matter openly, the voting, as of 10:30, stands at 74% for "No".

Posted by: Section505203

Well, 505203, I can read the polls. Human and constitutional rights, for both legal and illegal immigrants, are more important than public opinion. I am tired of listening to people blame immigrants for problems for which they are not the cause. Shout as loud as you want, it won't change my mind or the principle involved.

Posted by: handle | July 29, 2010 3:06 PM

It takes a lot of courage to go against a bigoted majority. Hats off to Judge Susan Bolton!

Posted by: chambedr | July 29, 2010 3:06 PM

The current system of selective enforcement is defacto slavery.

How can you support it?

Reform the laws.

Enforce the laws.

Posted by: gary4books | July 29, 2010 3:07 PM

The poll up top mirrors public opinion. I am suprised Wapo is even showing it.

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | July 29, 2010 3:25 PM

"...I have an idea. Why don't you get all Arizona businesses to comply with the law that requires them to check the legal status of job applicants? Right now, only about 1/3 do..."

If it were that easy, this would have been a dead issue a long time ago.

It all seems like it would be so simple....yet in practice, it's pretty well understood that unethical businesses get around the existing employee reporting laws by engaging sub-contractors to find and employ the illegal workers, then claiming they don't have knowledge of who the sub-contractors have hired.

I think it's also clear that major corporations don't systematically hire employees without valid ID and social security documentation. It's not McDonalds and Wal-Mart who run around picking up "day workers," I don't think they'd touch this situation, they'd be way too exposed, I'm sure some class-action attorney would figure out a way to turn that into $$$$. Seems to me it's the building trades and other under-the-radar entities who are doing this, and they are much harder to track.

Do a quick Wiki on the 1980s Reagan-era back-and-forth on laws requiring businesses to check their employees' citizenship status, and I think you'll see why there is is way more to this tricky problem that meets the eye. Many lawmakers have tried to invent and re-invent this wheel for decades - which I think also helps explain the frustration that led to the AZ law, it didn't just pop up overnight.

Posted by: davidwatching | July 29, 2010 3:26 PM

the burden on our economy is 200k missiles just about long as my arm . multimillion dollar war systems to chase a group of desert clowns aka terrorist around. a day of this war look at how many anybodies we could have fed.complain about that leave wic and food stamps out of this.

Posted by: tbaynes | July 29, 2010 3:27 PM

The results of this poll (thus far) shows that ignorance is rampant in this country regarding the workings of our Constitution and the Federal and State relationship. The judge was right.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | July 29, 2010 3:27 PM

I bet when lettuce tomatoes corn cucumbers and just plain old crops aren't picked with the hard laboring so called illegals are 5 and six dollars a pound. complain then. ever think about that? lettuce $5 a head eggplant $6 apound Whew

Posted by: tbaynes | July 29, 2010 3:32 PM

Well, according to the poll here, it seems even liberal WaPo frequenters oppose the ruling.

Posted by: leafgreen | July 29, 2010 3:36 PM

It's so sad how ignorant so many of you are... It's interesting how the focus is on Latino immigrants and not all of the other immigrants who are here in this country illegally. How about our Canadian neighbors? Europeans? There are individuals here illegally from all over the globe, however, the conservative right wing wants to pin this all on Latinos. I guess it's okay to be here illegally if you are blonde haired and blue eyed and "look" as though you should be here, right? At the end of the day, the Judge ruled as she is required under the Consitution. Remember, that extremely important document that the Founding Fathers created? Immigration is Federal jurisdiction and NOT under the jurisdiction of the 50 states. What chaos if every state chose to implement its own immigration laws. While this country is in need of serious immigration reform, let us not act as thought this all happened under the Obama Administration. What were the Republicans doing for 8 years under Bush or when they had control of Congress under Clinton??? See, the Republicans don't want immigration reform... Then they couldn't use their scare tactics to get all of their ignorant right wing followers in a frenzy...

Posted by: HotArdienteBoricua | July 29, 2010 3:49 PM

So, a US state establishes a law to protect itself because OUR Federal Government would not protect its citizens. But, the Federal Government overturns the state's law to protect itself, i.e., the US Federal Government is choosing ILLLEGAL IMMIGRANTS over its own CITIZENS. Wake up people!!!!!

Posted by: bmayhewbz@hotmail.com | July 29, 2010 3:51 PM

If the federal government and judiciary continue down this path states will secede. If the federal government refuses to protect its states and does not allow the states to protect themselves, what should the states do?

Posted by: bmayhewbz@hotmail.com | July 29, 2010 3:57 PM

So a Federal Judge says its probably unconstitutional for Arizona to require immigrants to carry identification at all times? Never mind that its been Federal law for the entire country for something like the last 70 years, and upheld by multiple courts.
Also, according to this "judge" if the level of criminality reaches a certain threshold then enforcing that law becomes an undue burden on law abiding citizens, making the law itself unconstitutional? Where do I find that little bit of insanity in the Constitution?
With judges like this the U.S.'s days as a sovereign nation are numbered.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Try this on for size;
You are a white person in AZ and you are mugged and all your ID's are taken,wallet/purse..Since you have no ID you cannot prove to the AZ police that you are a US citizen so they put you in jail til you produce the ID that was stolen etc..and because YOU ARE WHITE YOU ARE A SUPECTED CANADIAN ILLEGAL....!! great law ...!!

Posted by: RPLCO | July 29, 2010 4:01 PM

It is really surprising that the judge has stuck down a part of Law which merely enforces the Federal Law. Politicians who talk and take oath to enforce constitution do not believe in constitution. The judges are nominated and hence do have some sort of affiliation to the party which nomonates them. The constitution clearly makes responsible the Federal and State Govt to protect the lawful citizens. The Federal Govt goes against a state that tries to implement the Federal Law and does not bother about other cities and states which flout Federal Law by asking the police not to enforce Federal law(Sanctuary cities).For the information of anyone, when an immigrant gets his citizenship he is told that he/she is always required to demonstrate by any document like ID to show that he is legally residing in the US. Thousands of very well qualified who are married to a H1B holders are not allowed to work and are forced to stay on H4 but if the same person is here illegal he has protection. The politicians of both parties are responsible for this situation because of votes in the ensuing elections. Federal Government has not been able to enforce/implement Immigration Law and prevents any other agency from implementing the same. Both Republicans and Democrats in the senate and the house will never be able to enforce any Immigration Law which will protect the border states.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

So anytime a state dislikes the federal govt's actions they can do their own thing?
What's next ? print AZ currency ? coins and dollars ? Call them Arpaios instead of dollars..LOL..You AZ'z are zany..too much sun !!!

Posted by: RPLCO | July 29, 2010 4:08 PM

If the federal government and judiciary continue down this path states will secede. If the federal government refuses to protect its states and does not allow the states to protect themselves, what should the states do?

########################

HOW CAN I HELP YOU SECEDE ASAP ????? THANK YOU GOD .......(you have no idea what would happen to AZ--though I wish it would--you all would not last longer than a snowball in Hades)

Posted by: RPLCO | July 29, 2010 4:13 PM

The judge used the wrong standards to demonstrate a facial unconstitutionality. The 9th Circuit will overturn her decision. The burden to obtain a preliminary injunction is very high. The Feds haven't met it.

Posted by: Salubrius | July 29, 2010 4:23 PM

The judge was wrong not to throw the entire statute out...

Posted by: a-littlebird-ptolemy | July 29, 2010 4:43 PM

DCDawg1, don't try to present these people with facts or suggest they read the decision first. Their heads will explode if you challenge their ignorance and prejudice. I agree - please secede. My taxes won't have to go to fund Medicare for every fat tobacco addicted diabetic I see at these protests anymore. I can't wait.

Posted by: greyK | July 29, 2010 4:44 PM

For those of you who are arguing that this is an issue of state authority versus federal authority, the fact is that the current federal administration has no interest or intention of strongly enforcing immigration laws. We all can see that and it's plainly present in the discourse of the politicians and groups backing the federal government. The judge may try to curtail the authority of the state, but voters who are sick of the federal government's behavior are going to keep up pressure to enforce the laws against illegal immigration. The federal government makes a mockery of standing immigration laws so as to be able to say they need to be "reformed" according to its own interests. Some people will whine and say this is about "racism," or "anti-latino sentiment." These same people forget that many immigrants went through the trouble to come here legally and that such arguments are an affront to their efforts. The current administration would happily undermine the value of U.S. citizenship to further its own short-term electoral interests. That's not acceptable.

Posted by: ttj1 | July 29, 2010 4:46 PM

This is wonderful. All of the Tea Bigots claiming it's OBAMA that's out of control, when everyone knows the return of the Confederate Racists is behind all of the hatred in this country. Burn on, anti-Constitution screechers. Keep stomping on everything American, and smooching butt on everything fascist.

I notice none - ZERO - of you redneck pansies said a word while Cheny and Bush were destroying the country, our standing in the world, committing massive war crimes and setting energy policy with secret meetings with Cheney's energy industry employers.

The gutless wonders, thinking they can take over.

Posted by: 2229 | July 29, 2010 4:53 PM

The bigots are having a field day. We stole the entire state of Arizona from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe, which we forced Mexico to sign, and then we violated the same treaty in terms of land holdings, and now we want to enforce a law like this, that not only punishes the people who actually own Arizona, but also other American Citizens who don't look "American." You racists and bigots should study a little history!

Posted by: billaldridge | July 29, 2010 5:11 PM

JohnV111:
"How on earth can it be unconstitutional for a state to enforce Federal law?"

Because Arizona doesn't have that power *in this case* according to the Constitution.

"What the judge did was stupid."

Sorry, you're wrong.

"the Obama administration is saying that it's no longer illegal to be illegal."

No, it isn't.

"Think about that!"

Yes, you really should.

Posted by: presto668 | July 29, 2010 5:17 PM

ttj1:
"For those of you who are arguing that this is an issue of state authority versus federal authority, the fact is that the current federal administration has no interest or intention of strongly enforcing immigration laws."

Yeah, no interest at all... except for deporting more illegals than Bush and cracking down on people who employ illegals.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128826285

Posted by: presto668 | July 29, 2010 5:20 PM

One thing I find interesting is that almost everyone (Democrat, Republican, Independent, TEA BAGGER, etc.) recognizes that there is a need to revise the immigration laws, and the enforcement of those laws.

However, when the Democrats in Congress attempt to introduce a bill in Congress, the response from the GOOPers is that they will not agree to that bill. They do not offer any input as to what they want changed; and they do not introduce any bill of their own.

In addition, if the Democrats offer to increase the budget of any agency to 'beef up enforcement', the GOOPers fight that also, claiming that it increases the deficit, screaming that budget cuts need to be made to offset the increase, but do NOT offer any cuts they would like to see to offset the cost.

GOOPers and TEA BAGGERs - Almost everyone agrees that the laws need to be changed. However, if you are not willing to participate in the process, then you are giving implicit AND explicit permission for the laws to be changed in any manner that others may want.

Either you participate, and have the right to complain. But if you don't participate, then just, please, be quiet.

Posted by: critter69 | July 29, 2010 5:35 PM

..."This just goes too show how ignorant the American people really are who disagree, here's why...

..."Stero Profiling is wrong/fact! Labeling, stigmatizing, and Sterotyping is Racial Profiling folks and that is illegal and unAmerica/fact!

The Republicans wrote this law and passed it, they are the one's dividing a country by race, and this is illegal and Unconstitutional and Republican at it's best and really Injustice at it's worse!

..."True patriotism, "Hates Injustice In It's Own Land, "MORE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE."
---Clarence Darrow

This registered Voter/Vet USAF, glad, glad, glad, he voted for President Barack Obama, and hope he sends in the Justice Department to releash any and all hispanics the Republicans are rounding up under their racist discrimination law, that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I am disgusted that the majority of Americans agree with Arizona's racist law, and tells this Graduate Student, Masters Program, Professional Studies,
East Tennessee State University/Class/2010

that America still has along way to go to reach even a level platoe of racial equality to all who live here.

We have a long way to go when America allows a draconian law to be passed that sterotypes a race, through racial profiling and sends the LAW AFTER THEM!

Posted by: ztcb41 | July 29, 2010 6:09 PM

The poll is interesting but irrelevent.

We are government of laws and not of men. At least until today.


The alternative is the law of the jungle where the strongest and richest can force the minority to just shut up and take the abuse inflicted on them by the majority.


What are you going to do when you find yourself in the minority?


Not much, just hope that they are kinder to you than you were to them.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

That is the fear that drives the hatred.
The loss of majority control and the consequences of being a minority.

Posted by: bewildered1 | July 29, 2010 7:06 PM

Your Poll results are reflecting the feeling of the American people, but it also spells BIG TROUBLE for Obama and the Democrats in November.
There is a piece “The Coming Crash of the Social-Democratic Madness” that is predicting with other more significant figures and numbers just how well the November election has already been cast. This immigration issue just piles up on top of their figures. Find it at http://www.robbingamerica.com

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | July 29, 2010 7:27 PM

Ahhh, it is good to be white in America, and not have the cops question you.

Posted by: kamdog | July 29, 2010 7:32 PM

Well, we all know the Constitution gives responsibility for matters related to immigration to the Federal government. We also know that there are provisions in federal law governing immigration and that federal enforcement has been extremely poor. So, even if the judge is correct in the ruling, it makes the federal government look very bad that Arizona is faced with a certain amount of lawlessness that it can do nothing about.

At least, we are getting a growing amount of public interest in the U S Constitution. Let us hope that all of those commenters here who agree that the judge is adhering to the Constitution will be just as attuned to its provisions when all the suits related to the Tenth Amendment arrive in the courts.

Posted by: BobThompson | July 29, 2010 7:41 PM

The bill is very racist and is supported heartily by racists.

Posted by: colonelpanic | July 29, 2010 7:55 PM

One wonders if we shall see an upswing of bank robberies as a result of this ruling. As we all know, robbing a bank is a Federal crime, and local police cannot preempt Federal Law...besides which, expecting local police to catch bank robbers is an undue burden on local law enforcement.

Posted by: Cump | July 29, 2010 9:35 PM

She only used the Constitution as a reference in her decision. That won't matter to conservatives posting nonsense. The clear thought that an American will be held unjustly under the law made papers please for possible immigration violation a non-call. If the governor thinks that drug runners using auto-matic weapons in her state is a severe problem, she can declare an emergency and call out the guard. The law is now what it always was immigration gets turned over to ICE. How many unemployed hispanic Americans would go out without papers to be arrested and sue? It would become a cottage industry of ambulance chasing lawyers. The southern border could be closed using existing manpower if we would install sonic weapons guided by smart radar with a SOSUS line behind that defense.

Posted by: jameschirico | July 29, 2010 9:42 PM

I resent highly being called a traitor because I identify exonephobis for what it is.
Let's discuss patriotism. I served 23 years in the USAF and did a peace corps tour.
Freedom is not just freedom to agree.
List your credentials please.

Posted by: hoosiermandarin | July 29, 2010 10:29 PM

New Mexico gives driver's licenses to everyone - legal or not - and even before the AZ law went into effect, cars with NM license plates were regularly stopped on Arizona highways for no reason. On a trip to Arizona in the late spring, I was stopped 3 different times, once on an interstate and twice on state highways. I was not speeding any of the times. I received no tickets. I'm a 65+ year old man who happens to drive a car with tinted windows, I have a beard, and I'm a 5th generation Hispanic New Mexican. Each time I asked why I was stopped the AZ law enforcement officer could give me no reason. They were not traffic stops for insurance because I was singled out while other cars were waved past.

Profiling? You bet.

All of you who complain about liberal judges need to remember that John Kyle, AZ senator, recommended Judge Bolton. So quit complaining about her. Quit complaining about the feds. Complain about how poorly AZ enforces employment laws. The AZ farmers want cheap labor to harvest all the fresh vegetables and fruit that grow in the fall and winter. Quit getting your information from Fox News. The Shirley Sherrod mess should convince you to stick with more reliable sources. You post online to the Washington Post so you have access to a more reliable news source.

Posted by: pam8 | July 29, 2010 10:37 PM

notice how all those with no law degree have the answers and few have read the US Constitution. Arizona Governor would have been born overseas if her grandmother were turned back on the ship she came here on. We see law makers with no eduction in law and they haven't read the constitution. Why have laws if people aren't going to follow them. We had 8 years with no Justice Department and an Attorney General Gonzales who's sister is a king pin drug dealing running free. Gonzales lied under oath 57 times with no charges filed. Cheney leaked a Covert CIA Agent Plames name which caused many people to get killed that were helping her on information in Iran. Bush committed War Crimes and will be brought to Justice.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | July 29, 2010 11:18 PM

07/30/09 8419 votes and 68% NO votes. ALWAYS a suprize to me how individuals agree what is vocalized by the Talking Heads of the so called Liberal Media! Should ALL the provisions go into effect, people must ask themselves 1) HOW will law enforcement perform these additional tasks WITHOUT additional resources? ALL these things require funding, manpower and time. ALL of which means increased funding requirements. Ya'll ready for tax increases to pay for this? I thought not,,,

Posted by: Iggnacious | July 30, 2010 8:47 AM

Teabaggers should take heed that without that cheap labor, they will stand to pay a lot more money for their tinfoil.

Posted by: obx2004 | July 30, 2010 9:17 AM

Good. Our country is great. Rule of law prevails. And it seems that most jurisdictions have laws addressing loitering, and enforcing these laws would address problems at places like the Home Depot.

Posted by: johng1 | July 30, 2010 9:36 AM

The Arizona law says a person cannot be asked for ID unless it is during a stop for instance speeding or a crime. This has nothing to do with skin color. ALL of us have to produce ID under these circumstances. Obama's outrageous lie, among many others, about going to an ice cream shop with the kids and being arrested was deliberate and designed to scare and inflame the Hispanics.This was as bad as saying doctors cut off peoples feet so they can make more money during the health care debate.This non presidential behavior is abhorrent to most of us. His non stop campaigning never ends. His grinning, joking,undignified appearance on the View more of the same. Since those who voted for him did so just because he was sooo cool instead of qualified, we got just what they wanted. A rock star not a leader.

Posted by: katie6 | July 30, 2010 10:53 AM

Katie6, read my post. I am telling you that PRIOR to the law going into effect, AZ police stopped me for no reason except that I was driving a car with a NM license plate, and I am a Hispanic male. AZ knows that NM gives drivers licenses to everyone, legal or not, and those cops were simply looking for illegals by profiling.

Others who live in NM can tell the same story. It's really bad on I10 in the southern part of NM/AZ and on highway 80 which comes off I10 in NM and goes to Douglas, AZ. NM cars are regularly stopped on that road by Cochise County officers but never ticketed.

Posted by: pam8 | July 30, 2010 4:33 PM

can anyone explain why it is UNDUE BURDEN for those who are legally in the country? Is it undue burden when the highway patrol asks for driver license even though one did violate traffic laws? Also, carrying a piece of paper proofing you are in a country legally is a burden? they are not carrying 20 pound weights on their shoulders but just a document which most carry anyway. so, let's say i go to mexico and forget to have my passport, and they will put me in additional checkup to make sure I am a citizenbefore they let me to USA will be undue burden to me? even if it is undue burden, how about the burden on me supporting all these morons escaping from a third-world country working in cash, having 7 kids and me paying for their education. This is a due burden?

Posted by: recentimmigrant | July 31, 2010 12:16 AM

The federal law says they don't have to carry that papers with them, just have to be able to make it available. They are federal papers, like the social security card, not state papers.

That's one of the problems with the AZ law. It requires something that is contrary to the federal law and contrary to what is written on the papers. If it's important to you, then get the feds to change the law so it's the same in every state.

Posted by: pam8 | July 31, 2010 12:32 AM

I can see your point PAM8. However, it cannot be a undue burden for tourists or others in Arizona in addition to also have these papers in their posession. implementing laws in coherence with federal laws which strenghten federal laws as oppose to opposing them should not receive that attitude from federal government. it is just unprofessional,irresponsible and cynical when Los angeles and san francisco go against federal law and make their cities as sanctuaries of illegals an federal government doesn't even react to it,but when Arizona wants to make their federal laws more enforcable they come up with ridiculous and not serious statement as if it is untrue burden. same mexicans - mr rizo, here in city of bell , in los angeles are making themselves illegal elections and 800K a year salary. i came to usa, not a drug cartel country like mexicans are making now california, arizona and texas, and you americans are sleeping and letting them to step on you. you have to take charge of your country and your destiny and not let them to abuse you and people like me who come to this country from other countries and make it better, not worse.

Posted by: recentimmigrant | July 31, 2010 5:10 AM

The Arizona law did not strengthen federal law. It negated it. States can't do that.

The Arizona law made people prove themselves innocent. That's unconstitutional. If you want to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, then you have to accept that for everyone. It's not selective based upon appearance.

Arizona knew what it was doing. The point of this law was legal harassment. Illegal harassment is the norm in certain neighborhoods in Phoenix. There has always been discrimination against Hispanics in the southwest and California. It was just never as violent as discrimination against blacks in the south.

When I heard white citizens speaking out against the rights of those protesting the law, it's just like what I heard southern whites saying during the 60s. When I hear "those people", I hear discrimination.

Posted by: pam8 | July 31, 2010 1:37 PM

You probably are from where there are not many illegals. You probably haven't seen them on the streets, on home depot seeking "work". Trust me, they do look different, and this is not if they are hispanic or not. I can tell with 100% accuracy if someone is illegal or not regardless he is hispanic or not. Illegal hispanics or other illegals look different. And hispanic does not mean "brown". There are lots of Caucasian hispanics too, blonds with light skin who look like regular white people, but someone has to be really stupid not to notice how different is this white illegal hispanic from a regular "brown" hispanic who lives in this country as any other citizen or legal resident. those who make the claims like you as if it will discriminate against other hispanics who are legal here know nothing from practice. but those who made Arizona law obviously did since they deal with this BS everyday and want to have a legal foundation to enforce same federal laws.

Posted by: recentimmigrant | July 31, 2010 9:16 PM

Oh yes, I forgot to mention about "harrasment". Here in SoCal Mexicans are the ones who do all the harrasments thanks to you talking about "higher materia" such as "undue burden" of carrying a piece of paper. Rizo's harrasment already mentioned. Villaraoigosa is having a mistress, not paying for his tickets for dodgers game, making a "wager" on my taxpayer money with Arizona governor, and many other things these Mexicans do in their corrupt and illegal countries. Mexican construction workers bully all the time white guys, their gangs are controlling areas here. If it was my will I will singlhandidly put all them in a nice train and ship them back to from where they came. But no, you are too civil of a people, I would say YOU ARE NOT CIVIL YOU ARE WEAK. YOU CONTINUE LIKE THIS, IN 10,20,30 years there will be a war to re-unite Cali, Arizona Texas etc back to Mexico because of your weeknees and putting them on your head. LIke USA now has a negative neth worth in the world 2000 times more than the nearest country. Americans have hard time doing business in Europe and Japan, but you open your asses to all of them. Japanese have already bought some key cities in the USA. When the time will come so that you finally wake up? One thing is being nice, another thing is being STUPID.

Posted by: recentimmigrant | July 31, 2010 9:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company