Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

“Judge Blocks Part of Controversial Arizona Immigration Law” – UPDATED

July 28, 2010 By shillelaghlaw

From CNN.com

A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

So is a 21st Century Fort Sumter coming down the pike?

UPDATE: I took a quick read-through of the decision to find out the specific parts of the law which are blocked.

The judge’s ruling preliminarily enjoins Arizona from enforcing four provisions of the law:

• A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) – Law enforcement determining immigration status of persons stopped, detained, or under arrest;

• A.R.S. § 13-1509-  “creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers”;

• A.R.S. § 13-2928(C)- “creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work”;

• A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5) “authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User

Comments

  1. judy-meredith says

    July 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    <

    p>What do those not insignificant independent nations called Indian reservations do? Stick with Arizona?

    <

    p>I don’t think so.
     

  2. kirth says

    July 29, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Where does that come from?

  3. johnd says

    July 29, 2010 at 8:38 am

    but at least some aspects of the new law will go into action.

  4. joeltpatterson says

    July 29, 2010 at 8:59 am

    as in Tennessee or Arizona, we need to ask Gene Lyons’ question…

    <

    p>Doesn’t that mean the University of Tennessee (or Arizona) is no longer eligible to compete in the NCAA?

    <

    p>Why do Republicans want to keep the Volunteers and Wildcats out of bowl games?

    • stomv says

      July 29, 2010 at 1:10 pm

      There’s no reason why they wouldn’t be eligible.  The NCAA is a member’s organization — they could change the rules to allow UT or AU to compete.

      <

      p>Of course, the real question is: how will UT or AU survive without the tremendous amount of funding for research and scholarships provided by the US gov’t.  Furthermore, now the students from Tenn or AZ applying to US schools for graduate school will find that they’re not eligible for US scholarships.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>All of this is moot.  There was a minor incident in the 1860s which suggest that maybe seceding isn’t going to be permitted.

  5. nopolitician says

    July 29, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Although I think that most of the law was ridiculous, particularly the part which seemed to empower police officers to check the immigration status of people that were suspected of committing a crime (and I believe that one such crime would simply be being in this country illegally), I think that this ruling goes a little bit too far.

    <

    p>I do not favor people’s status being randomly checked, and in fact I support the idea of increasing immigration quotas to make less people “illegal”. However, I think that a state should be able to check the immigration status of someone arrested for a crime — though I recognize that this could lead to trumping up charges just to check immigration status.

    <

    p>There must be some ground where someone’s status can be checked and this person deported if they are found to be in this country illegally. I don’t favor mass deportations (which would be impractical), but doesn’t deporting persons arrested — or at least convicted — make some sense? Without any enforcement whatsoever, then we do in fact have open borders.

    • kirth says

      July 29, 2010 at 11:19 am

      The Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of Homeland Security has the authority to stop, question, and detain anyone within 100 miles of any U.S. border. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are U.S. borders, and two-thirds of the population lives within the border zone. If you are detained, ICE can hold you indefinitely, and is not required to give your attorney access, or to tell anyone where you are being held. There have been instances of native-born citizens being deported to countries they’ve never seen before.

      <

      p>The problem is not that there is “no enforcement whatsoever.” The problem is that immigration is not the problem; it’s a massive straw man.

      • dcsohl says

        July 29, 2010 at 12:29 pm

        There have been instances of native-born citizens being deported to countries they’ve never seen before.

        <

        p>Can you provide some examples/cites? I’ve heard this “100 mile” thing before, but don’t have a reliable source…

        • stomv says

          July 29, 2010 at 1:12 pm

          you can do your own research from there.  ACLU v. 100 mile zone.

          • stomv says

            July 29, 2010 at 1:16 pm

            Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida and DC are entirely within that zone.  A tiny sliver of VT, MA, and MD ensure that some portions of those states are outside of this 100 mile buffer.

        • kirth says

          July 29, 2010 at 4:27 pm

          Immigration officials detaining, deporting American citizens
          . . .
          Pedro Guzman, a mentally disabled U.S. citizen who was born in Los Angeles, was serving a 120-day sentence for trespassing last year when he was shipped off to Mexico.
          . . .
          “The burden of proof is on the individual to show they’re legally entitled to be in the United States,” said ICE spokeswoman Kice.
          . . .
          Rachel Rosenbloom, an attorney at the Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Boston College who’s identified at least seven U.S. citizens whom ICE has mistakenly deported since 2000, believes that the agency should set up a more formal way of handling detainees when they appear to have valid claims of U.S. citizenship.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.