Federal Judge BLOCKS SB1070!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Martin van Burden, Jul 28, 2010.

  1. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
  2. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The title isn't 100% correct, BTW....
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Correct. Only some of the more controversial parts of the bill have been blocked. It's still a good thing, but I'm sure it won't be the last we hear of it.
     
  4. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    Er, until those provisions are sorted through, enforcement of the bill as it's written is on hold -- and thus blocked. Potato, potahto. I said, discuss! :)
     
  5. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    No, many of the provisions will be allowed to move forward and be enforced.....
     
  6. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    The provisions that were blocked were some of the most controversial. I'll just quote straight from the article.

    "Bolton delayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places – a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, she blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants for crimes that can lead to deportation."

    I'm not naive; people can still get deported. The federal government made a good case for banning provisions for two reasons: (1) for the undue strain it would put on local enforcement, which is already broke as it is in the state, to redivert manpower for doing all the background checks; and (2) it reiterated the catch-22 of not using racial profiling for an incredibly racialized issue. Either way, the judge was unconvinced that SB1070 as it stands could be enforced in a substantive way that would preserve civil liberties. Since it was a judge hearing the case, I doubt any of the legal Hispanic citizens who were close to be detained and deported unlawfully were able to share their testimony. Still, that's the crux of the matter and a large determinant of why she blocked sections.

    Given how ugly this law has been and the very mixed support (which calls into question who stands on one side or the other) it has garnered, I still call this a substantive win.
     
  7. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Here's the actual court ruling on the United States' motion for preliminary injunction, just on the off-chance anyone is actually inclined to know what the hell they're talking about.
     
  8. Tevye

    Tevye New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for this.
     
  9. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I've grown to love you. Purely platnoic, BTW :smile::wink:
     
  10. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,388
    Likes Received:
    2,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Key points:

    Judge Bolton explained basic points that those who support the Arizona law have ignored or forgotten:

    ¶A state cannot require its police officers to demand the papers of people they stop and suspect are illegal immigrants. As the judge wrote, the law places an “unacceptable burden on lawfully present aliens.”

    Arizona cannot require that every arrested person have his or her immigration status checked, or that people be detained until they prove they are here lawfully.

    ¶Arizona cannot make it a state crime for immigrants not to carry papers at all times, or for an undocumented immigrant to look for work.

    ¶It cannot give officers the power to make warrantless arrests of anyone they believe has committed a crime that makes them deportable. Deportation is a matter to be decided by a judge in court, Judge Bolton wrote, not a state trooper or sheriff’s deputy in a traffic stop.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted