Sorry – been a crazy day, so in the interest of time, I’ll direct you to Bill Jacobon’s analysis at Legal Insurrection on the ruling that was handed down earlier today on the Arizona immigration law. The key aka “most controversial” provisions of the law have, in effect, been put on hold while the Obama administration proceeds with its lawsuit against the state.
Bill opines opines:
The inability of a state to implement a policy of checking the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime is remarkable.
While I cannot blame the Judge for striking some provisions of S.B. 1070 (particularly those creating independent criminal sanctions), the ruling as to checking the status of people already under arrest is mind-numbing.
As a reader to my prior post points out, states already routinely run searches for a variety of statuses, including outstanding warrants, child support orders, and non-immigration identity checks. Each of these checks potentially could delay release of an innocent person or burden some federal agency.
The Judge’s reasoning, particularly that the status check provision violated the 4th Amendment even as to persons already under arrest, applies just as easily to these other status checks.
With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on “comprehensive” immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.
As it stands this afternoon, it is perfectly rational for someone faced with the choice of obeying the immigration laws or not, to choose not to do so. The choice of lawlessness makes a lot more sense than spending years winding through the byzantine legal immigration system, because the end result will be the same but lawlessness gets you here more quickly.
When the law and the federal government reward lawlessness, something is very wrong.
Of course, this is only a temporary set back as the full case has yet to be heard by the courts. That’s the good news. That said, Bill brings some good points. What about the other states who have similar laws on their books already, or who are exploring the possibility of putting one on the books? Can the ones with similar laws on the books expect a lawsuit, also, from the shameless political panderers and race-baiters in the Obama DOJ? And as far as the ones go who are looking into enacting similar legislation in their respective states, will this ruling have a chilling effect on those states in terms of putting them in the position of having to reconsider?
Gloomy, baby, gloomy. But not over.