Thread: Controversial Arizona Law Debated in San Francisco

Written by Alex Garcia, Sun Contributing Writer
Wednesday, 03 November 2010
Four months after a federal judge blocked some of the most contentious parts of Arizona's controversial measure SB 1070, which criminalized undocumented immigrants, the law was center stage again this week in San Francisco where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments both for and against a lower court's decision.

SB 1070, which was approved earlier this year by the Arizona legislature, required local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of those stopped for other offenses. The measure came immediately under fire from pro-immigrant groups and the federal government, which argued that Arizona was adopting immigration powers that were strictly the purview of the nation and not the states.

In late July, Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked several of the most contentious parts of the measure, including provisions that required law enforcement officers to check a person's immigration status. It also stopped other provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

Arizona appealed that decision, which now falls under the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction. The hearing in San Francisco lasted about an hour, during which lawyers from both sides of the debate provided their arguments.

According to the Arizona Republic newspaper, the three-judge panel appeared Monday likely to reverse some of the lower court's ruling, while retaining others. For instance, they seemed go against the lower court in allowing police in certain situations to investigate a person's immigration status if there is reasonable cause to suspect that person had committed a crime.

Maria Aide Hernandez (center), an employee at a car wash, said approval of SB 1070 would spread fear through the immigrant community, which would be reluctant to report crimes and cooperate with authorities in police investigations.
But the panel also seemed to agree with a lower court ruling that other provisions of Arizona's law were "preempt-ed" by the federal government's sole authority to regulate immigration. In addition, the court appeared likely to reject provisions that would make it a state crime for a person not carrying immigration papers and that allows for criminal punishment of illegal immigrants who seek work in Arizona.

Vivek Mattal, a lawyer member of the National Immigration Law Center, one of the groups that filed suit against SB 1070, said they were confident the Court will side with them.

"What we argued is that the Constitution assigns responsibility for immigration to the federal government, not the states," Mattal said.

"Arizona is trying to create its own immigration law, putting a lot of residents under the threat of erroneous investigations or arrests," Mattal added.

In a statement, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who was present at the hearing in San Francisco, also expressed confidence her side will prevail.

"My counsel, John Bouma, argued that this case is about what a state – any state – can do about a failed federal immigration system that even President Obama acknowledges is broken. There are very serious crimes associated with this failure, including human smuggling, drug trafficking and other activities involving coyotes in Arizona, as acknowledged by Judge Bolton," stated Brewer.

"The District Court applied the wrong legal standard of review and issued a preliminary injunction that preserves the status quo – a status quo that is unacceptable to the people lawfully present in Arizona, many whose lives are affected on a daily basis," she continued.

"Although the judges asked challenging questions of both sides during this morning's hearing, we are hopeful that after carefully considering the arguments, the Ninth Circuit will lift the stay and allow SB 1070 to be enforced. The health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Arizona are irreparably harmed every day the courts allow SB 1070 to be put on hold and the federal government refuses to enforce all immigration laws."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision could come in several weeks or months. That decision could then be appealed to a larger circuit panel and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

E-mail your thoughts to the editor at editor@sanfernandosun.com.
http://www.sanfernandosun.com/sanfernsu ... 8&Itemid=2

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I think the only controversy surrounding SB1070 is being drummed up by illegal invaders and their supporters. The vast majority of AMERICAN citizens support this law as well as Arizona's efforts to defend itself from an invasion which our federal government is not interested in fighting.

Asking someone to provide identification during a legitimate police encounter should not be controversial, especially when those opposing it are basing their claims on racial arguments, designed solely to protect those in this country illegally.

The entire law should have been left intact and implemented, as it prescribes nothing more than what federal law already allows. Instead, the law is being gutted from within by a judicial activist who would rather protect illegal invaders than uphold the rule of law.

Why is it that every time a police officer makes a stop the first thing they ask for is identification no matter who you are! if I don't have I.d. they have a right to detain me till they verifiy who I am ( even being a citizen I'm aware that's how it works). I'm amazed that this is even a point of contension between the two groups.