Thread: Ariz. immigration law hearing ends with no ruling

July 15, 2010
Ariz. immigration law hearing ends with no ruling
By JACQUES BILLEAUD (AP) – 34 minutes ago

PHOENIX — A federal judge in Phoenix didn't rule on whether to block Arizona's new immgiration law Thursday after two hours of testimony in the first major hearing in one of seven challenges to the strict crackdown.

The Phoenix police officer who filed the lawsuit could be fired if he doesn't enforce the law he has sued to block, an attorney told U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who didn't say when she'd decide whether to halt the law before it takes effect July 29.

Attorneys for Gov. Jan Brewer told U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton that the lawsuit — filed by Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa — should be dismissed because Salgado and the group lack legal standing to sue and that there's no valid claim of immediate harm.

But Salgado's attorney disagreed.

"He does have a real threat," attorney Stephen Montoya said. "They can fire him. That's enough."

Bolton is considering whether to block the law and whether to dismiss the lawsuit. She may not rule before the law is set to take effect July 29.

Hearings on the six other lawsuits, including one filed by the federal government, are set for next week.

Protesters and supporters of the law gathered outside the courthouse, separated by at least seven Phoenix police officers carrying guns and handcuffs.

About two dozen supporters, many dressed in red, white and blue, held up signs praising Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a major backer of the crackdown on illegal immigrants, and one that said "American Pride."

Larry Templeton, 66, of Sun City, said he came to support the law because he believes in defending states' rights.

"They're saying it's racist. It isn't anti any race, it's anti-criminal," said Templeton, who wore an American flag T-shirt and a hat with American flag buttons.

About 10 feet away, some 30 people opposed to the law held up signs calling for its repeal.

"We demand an injunction. We demand a federal intervention," opponent Sandra Castro of Phoenix, 22, yelled into a bullhorn.

The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Supporters say the law was needed because the federal government hasn't adequately confronted illegal immigration in Arizona, the busiest illegal gateway for immigrants into the United States. Opponents say the law would lead to racial profiling and distract from police officers' traditional roles in combating crimes in their communities.

Montoya said the U.S. Department of Justice's separate challenge to the Arizona law bolsters his clients' argument that the state law is unconstitutional. Both lawsuits contend the state law intrudes on the federal government's constitutional authority to set and enforce immigration policy and regulation.

"That's one more opinion," said John Bouma, a private attorney representing Brewer. "The fact that they brought the claim doesn't mean they are correct."

The large ceremonial courtroom at the main federal courthouse in Phoenix was packed with more than 100 spectators as the hearing began. More than a dozen lawyers were in place along two L-shaped tables, evenly divided between each side. The jury box was filled with law clerks for judges who work in the building who came to observe.

Since Brewer signed the measure into law April 23, it has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries and prompted the Obama administration to file a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law.

Salgado's attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require an officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law.

Attorneys for Brewer asked that the officer's lawsuit be thrown out because Salgado doesn't allege a real threat of harm from enforcing the new law and instead bases his claim on speculation. They also said the state law prohibits racial profiling and that it isn't trumped by federal immigration law because it doesn't attempt to regulate the conditions under which people can enter and leave the country.

The other challenges to the law were filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights organizations, clergy groups, a researcher from Washington and a Tucson police officer.

Bolton plans to hold similar hearings July 22 in the lawsuits filed by the federal government and civil rights groups.

Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Michelle Price contributed to this report.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9GVMA9O2

Bolton probably has an Excedrin headache tonight.

Protesters and supporters of the law gathered outside the courthouse, separated by at least seven Phoenix police officers carrying guns and handcuffs.

Umm, I thought all cops carry guns and handcuffs. So why point out that these cops had them?

The Phoenix police officer who filed the lawsuit could be fired if he doesn't enforce the law he has sued to block, ..........."He does have a real threat," attorney Stephen Montoya said. "They can fire him. That's enough."

Well, gee. Cops are hired to enforce all laws. If he does not enforce this law, then he is not doing the job he was hired to do and should be fired.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5467--0-0.html