Judge mulls Arizona immigration law

A_protester_is_arrested_by_phoenix_police_after_demonstrating_against_the_immigration_law_column

Photo: Ap

The Politico by Josh Gerstein | Jul. 23, 2010 (News Report)

A federal judge is considering taking a scalpel to Arizona’s new state immigration-enforcement law, carving out certain provisions of the controversial measure while allowing other parts of the legislation to take effect as scheduled next week.

In back-to-back hearings Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton seemed doubtful about at least three different aspects of the law, commonly known as S.B. 1070. She questioned Arizona’s ... Full Story »

Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV

See All Reviews »

View

5.0

by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Jul. 23, 2010

As Judge Bolton said, “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remain in the U.S. unlawfully?” Indeed is that not correct? As a resident of Arizona since 1965 I was at first not sure which side of the fence I was on, after long thought I must agree that this law is a must when I see all the death, kidnapping, and other crimes that are a 100% direct cause of these illegals. For decades Arizona has been asking the Federal authorities to help us, to no avail. So correctly we have had no choice but to take matters into our own hands, now we will wait and see what the Federal Courts end up doing. As we all know Congress refuses to act due to political gridlock – the public (citizens and illegals) wellfare be damned!!!

“The problem comes with respect to the rigid requirement to act,” Kneedler answered, referring to the law’s mandatory provision to detain and check every suspect. “If this was extended throughout the nation, if every state adopted something like this, there would be a huge surge in requests” to the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.

OMG the Federal government is worried computer requests for status’ will overload their outdated computer system?

While the state repeatedly dismissed the prospect of racial profiling, that claim actually played a minor role in the private plaintiffs’ arguments Thursday. Instead, their focus was mainly on claims that the law would cause arrests of immigrants whom the federal government had decided to allow to remain in the country.

"…law would cause arrests of immigrants whom the federal government had decided to allow to remain in the country.
"; well isn’t this an interesting view makes me think of DADT.

The state is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the new legislation. In one case last week, Bolton heard last week from an attorney for a police officer who says he fears being fired if he fails to enforce the immigration-related measure.

As a prior member of law enforcement I find this statement absurd and appalling, further it is a slap at every law enforcement person as it is NOT the officers job to decide which law to enforce in the first place – that job belongs solely to the judicial and legislative branches of government. Any ‘cop’ who wouldn’t enforce this law should resign and if he/she doesn’t enforce the law should be disciplined, in accordance with those departments’ regulations.

Samuel posted this story.