Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Most normal people do so too for the reasons you mentioned, yet apparently some on here don't carry ID.

Then again, ID or not, a police officer is not allowed to ask for ID without probably cause - end of story.

Probable cause is what is required for an arrest. I think you mean reasonable suspicion.

[The_Dude 1,142]

#######. Really????

It's 8 digits.... less than a social security number.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's 8 digits.... less than a social security number.

Oh, mines a lot longer.

And I do mean my driver license #.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Oh, mines a lot longer.

And I do mean my driver license #.

15 numbers/letters?

[^_^ 5,021]

That looks right.

[The_Dude 1,142]

That looks right.

Well now that changes everything. I don't think I could ever live in New Jersey now

[^_^ 5,021]

Well now that changes everything. I don't think I could ever live in New Jersey now

Left coasters don't last very long here

[justashooter 430]

Odd that she would enjoin the part requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers. That's required by federal law.

some of the parts of the decision are designed to empower state and local agencies to enforce federal law. many already have the right to do this under 287g. there is lots of win in this decision. included below are excerpts of the text indicating win. there is also quite a bit of clarity given in terms of how the injunctioned segments could be reworded into an acceptable form. the jurist ruling in this case is opbviously competent, and is obviously sympathetic to AZ. expect to see the enjoined segments re-adopted with minor modifications tailored to address her concerns. overall, a big win.

the big win includes a ban on "sanctuary cities", a criminalisation of the emplyment of an illegal from both ends, a criminalisation of transport/harbour/induce entry of an illegal, an allowance for seizure of transportation devices used in the movement of illegals, sanctions the use of an employment qualification system (e-verify), recognises the federal offenses related to false papers, and empowers the stop of illegal traffickers.

this is a big win.

the Court therefore does not enjoin the

following provisions of S.B. 1070:

Section 1 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. citation: providing the intent of the legislation

A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political

subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal

immigration laws

A.R.S. § 11-1051©-: requiring that state officials work with federal officials

with regard to unlawfully present aliens

A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-: allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency,

or political subdivision for adopting a policy of

restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to

less than the full extent permitted by federal law

Section 4 of S.B. 10702

A.R.S. § 13-2319: amending the crime of human smuggling

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B): creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up

day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor

vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic

Section 7 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 23-212: amending the crime of knowing employment of

unauthorized aliens

Section 8 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 23-212.01: amending the crime of intentional employment of

unauthorized aliens

Section 9 of S.B. 1070

the Court therefore does not enjoin

the enforcement of the following provisions of S.B. 1070:

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 13-2929: creating a separate crime for a person in violation of a

criminal offense to transport or harbor an unlawfully

present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present

alien to come to or live in Arizona

the federal government is not seeking to enjoin

A.R.S. § 13-2319 at this time.

Section 10 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 28-3511: amending the provisions for the removal or impoundment

of a vehicle to permit impoundment of vehicles used in

the transporting or harboring of unlawfully present aliens

A.R.S. § 23-214: amending the requirements for checking employment

eligibility

Section 11 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 41-1724: creating the gang and immigration intelligence team

enforcement mission fund

Sections 12 & 13 of S.B. 1070

no A.R.S. citation: administering S.B. 1070

The United States must first demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Winter,

129 S. Ct. at 374. The United States challenges S.B. 1070 on its face, before it takes effect on

July 29, 2010. (Pl.’s Mot. at 7.) “A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most

difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of

circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”

While the United States has requested that the Court enjoin S.B. 1070 in its

entirety, it specifically challenges only select provisions of S.B. 1070.

The Court cannot enjoin a purpose; the Arizona Legislature is free to

express its viewpoint and intention as it wishes...S.B. 1070 will not be enjoined in its entirety.

Section 4 of S.B. 1070 amends Arizona’s human smuggling statute, A.R.S. § 13-2319.

Section 4 adds, “Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace

officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has

reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.”

...the Court finds that the United States is not likely

to succeed on a claim that Section 4 of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law.

The provisions of Title 18 referenced in §

1324a(b)(5) of Title 8 make it a federal crime to, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the

federal government:

18 U.S.C. § 1001(a): (1) falsify, conceal, or cover up any material fact;

(2) knowingly make or use a materially false,

fictitious, or fraudulent statement; or (3) make or

use any false writing or document.

18 U.S.C. § 1028(a): knowingly make, use, or transfer a false or stolen

identification document or identification document

belonging to another person or any implement or

feature for use in creating a false identification

document.

18 U.S.C. § 1546: (a) forge or falsify an immigration document; or

(b) use a false identification document, a document

not properly issued to the user, or a false

attestation.

18 U.S.C. § 1621: commit perjury by knowingly making a false

statement after taking an oath to tell the truth

during a proceeding or on any document signed

under penalty of perjury.

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 also creates A.R.S. § 13-2929, which makes it illegal for a

person who is in violation of a criminal offense to: (1) transport or move or attempt to

transport or move an alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s unlawful presence in the

United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien

from detection in Arizona; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona.

...the Court concludes

that the United States is not likely to succeed on its claim that A.R.S. § 13-2929 is an

impermissible regulation of immigration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the United States’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction as to the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162):

Section 1, Section 2(A) and ©-, Section 4, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-

2929, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), and Sections 7-13.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, I don't believe you love the Constitution. Nothing you promote for this country embodies a love for it, any of its principles, or its preservation. You don't keep trying to change something you love into something unsustainable to push an ideology, but that's what you do. Your kind of "love" amounts to lip service only. Not an insult, just an observation.

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument...they resort to personal insults.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The judges decision should be thrown out. She took her own personal opinion in the decision making, which is obvious from the comments she made along the lines of "racial profiling." - She should honestly be tossed off the bench and publicly brutalized by tomatoes!

[^_^ 5,021]

The judges decision should be thrown out. She took her own personal opinion in the decision making, which is obvious from the comments she made along the lines of "racial profiling." - She should honestly be tossed off the bench and publicly brutalized by tomatoes!

tomatoes

[The_Dude 1,142]

tomatoes

I don't think someone has been pasted with tomatoes since the era when men wore spats.

[Pooky 3,366]

Steven, I don't believe you love the Constitution. Nothing you promote for this country embodies a love for it, any of its principles, or its preservation. You don't keep trying to change something you love into something unsustainable to push an ideology, but that's what you do. Your kind of "love" amounts to lip service only. Not an insult, just an observation.

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument...they resort to personal insults.

Therefore, I believe Soffiya is winning this one, because I can't see an insult in there

Regardless, I was never so blinkered as to believe this would ever be settled by any court lower than the Supreme Court. Am I disappointed that the Judge rules as she did? A fair bit, yes. Am I heartened that she didn't block the whole bill? Yes, I am. Will the bill emerge at the end of this process as effective as Arizona wished? Doubtful on that one. Will Arizona give up? No.

Will the public engagement on illegal immigration subside before November and the mid-terms? I really don't think so. If anything, this ruling may just solidify this issue in the minds of the electorate and make it even harder on the incumbents this time around. If so, that can only be a good thing.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Pooky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The judges decision should be thrown out. She took her own personal opinion in the decision making, which is obvious from the comments she made along the lines of "racial profiling." - She should honestly be tossed off the bench and publicly brutalized by tomatoes!

Yeah, she doesn't know sh!t about constitutional law. Not like you do.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yeah, she doesn't know sh!t about constitutional law. Not like you do.

If you're saying she made a constitutional ruling, then the decision should be thrown out actually, as that was not her job today. It was a matter of, "do we let it go into effect or not" before the real case comes about.

Of course I'll take my expertise over someone acting like a political hack in their judicial rulings.