☰ Menu

Thank you for checking out the All The King's Men blog. This blog is no longer being supported, updated and available on And has been discontinued.
You will be redirected in 7 seconds...

All Da King's Men

Arizona Immigration Law Blocked, Drug Cartels Rejoice

By Da King Published: July 29, 2010

The above sign is 70 miles south of Pheonix, Arizona. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the United States due to the drug gangs. The sign above warns people to stay away from the area due to the presence of armed criminals and smugglers. This is in the United States Of America. Think about that as you read below how our country is hamstringing it's own law enforcement efforts.
Judge Susan Bolton of the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals issued an injunction temporarily blocking major parts of Arizona's new immigration law, SB1070. The disemboweled law goes into effect today, not that it much matters now. Following is some of Bolton's thinking. From the Associated Press:

Bolton indicated the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law...

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also 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," said Bolton, a Clinton administration appointee who was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against Arizona over the law.

Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday, including a section that bars cities in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.

The pre-emption argument (federal law trumps state law) I don't buy at all. I would buy it if SB1070 contradicted federal law, but it does not do that. SB1070 is pretty much the same as federal law. Checking everyone's immigration status during the enforcement of other laws may be a bit different, but not by much. It's in the spirit of federal law. Federal immigration law requires immigrants to carry their papers so they can prove their status. It's no different than having to show the police your driver's license and registration in the course of being stopped for a traffic violation. Also, if Arizona is checking the immigration status of EVERYONE, then the racial profiling argument flies out the window. That's probably the reason Arizona setup the law in that manner in the first place. Where the pre-emption argument does standup is where Bolton ruled against so-called sanctuary cities. The sanctuary policies DO fly in the face of existing federal immigration law. How odd that the Obama administration didn't file a lawsuit against the sanctuary cities, only against Arizona, who is trying to enforce the law. That signals the true intent of the Obama administration.

Even more misguided is Bolton blocking the part of the Arizona law that says immigrants must carry their papers. As I said before, that is already existing federal law. Bolton ruled AGAINST federal law in this instance. She has pre-empted federal law herself. I'm not sure how she can rule that way and still pretend to be a judge. When she rules directly against the law like that, she's no longer a judge, she's an activist.

Bolton's third argument is that the Arizona law would place an undue burden on the federal government, as follows:

For these reasons, the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.

In other words, the federal government isn't prepared to enforce it's own imigration laws ! It would be too much of a "burden." Fabulous. I'm wondering, for what do we taxpayers send TRILLIONS of dollars to Washington D.C. every year ? I thought federal law enforcement would be included in that amount. I guess I was wrong. Bolton has ruled that Arizona can't enforce immigration law because it pre-empts the federal government's enforcement, and at the same time she argues that the federal government can't enforce immigration law either ! It's too "burdensome." Talk about your circular logic, where lawlessness wins out any way you look at it.

The good news is, the fight is not over. Bolton's restraining order is temporary, and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has indicated she will appeal and fight it in court. In the meantime, I'd like to offer my congratulations to all the persons who will benefit by Judge Bolton's injunction. Here are the big temporary winner's and losers...

Winners: The drug cartels, the human traffickers, the illegal border jumpers, and the Obama administration. You're in good company, Barack. ALL the criminals are on your side.

Losers: The law-abiding, legal citizens of Arizona and the rest of the country. The people who DON'T count to Mr. Obama.



About This Blog

Prev Next