Free Markets, Free People

AZ immigration law – "preserving the status quo…"

A very interesting sentence in the judge’s injunction against the Arizona immigration law caught my eye yesterday. In her ruling, which voided much of the law, Judge Susan Bolton said:

“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.

Of course the real status quo is federal non-enforcement of immigration laws – thereby driving the state of Arizona and other states to take matters into their own hands.

That’s not the status quo Judge Bolton is talking about, but it is the reality of immigration enforcement in this country.

This obviously isn’t the end of the road for the law, but I’d guess it’s on life support as the appeals process goes forward. Bolton’s ruling is likely to reflect how the other levels of the federal judiciary will rule on the law.

I have to admit to being a bit surprised that she ruled against law enforcement checking immigration status while processing someone for a different reason and left intact the portion of the law making it a crime to stop a vehicle in traffic or block traffic to hire someone off the street. However she did block a provision that barred illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places.

On the political side of things, AZ’s Democratic Attorney General, a possible candidate for governor, thinks he has a winner:

Terry Goddard, the Arizona attorney general who opposed the law and is a possible Democratic opponent to Ms. Brewer, was quick to condemn her for signing it. “Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost,” he said in a statement.

Brewer can only hope he keeps saying that until the election, because I’d guess – as much of a hot button as this is in AZ and because of the overwhelming support of the AZ voters – it’s really a loser for Goddard and the Democrats.

Even John McCain and Jon Kyle weighed in on the ruling:

“Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome,” Mr. McCain said in a joint statement with Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, “the Obama administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the federal government has failed to take responsibility.”

But of course, the failure of the administration to take responsibility is the ‘status quo’, and it appears, unfortunately, that it will be “preserved”.



[tweetmeme only_single=”false”]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to AZ immigration law – "preserving the status quo…"

  • I was pretty sure that this would happen, If you all recall I said that Holder would never have brought this suit if he was not sure of the outcome. This judge was sounded out before hand. Let’s not be naive.

    • I am curious how Bolton got it.  Early AP reports had a Bush appointee as the assigned judge.

  • Judge Bolton did a “punt.”  No doubt about it.

  • I recall being in the train station in Munich and seeing the police ask for the papers of a bunch of non-German looking folk.  Since you have to have your papers on hand and show them on demand in Germany, I started getting my passport out.   One of the cops saw me, shook his head and motioned for me to put my passport back.  He then went to the next group of foreign looking travelers.

    I could understand that a bit — waiting areas in train stations tended to be hang outs for homeless, and I had my back pack and was obviously traveling — still, I also remember thinking that I was glad I didn’t live in a country where you always had to have your papers on hand to show authorities whenever they so demanded.

    • Umm…  You were A VISITOR…or ALIEN…in just such a country.
      All of em are like that, idiot.

    • I recall being in the train station in Munich and blah, blah, blah, you’re all Nazis, blah, blah, blah. I’m sure glad I’m not like that.

      Sorry for the blah, blah, blah, but when you’re just mailing it in because of depression induced by Obama’s incompetence, the details have to suffer a bit. Besides, I have to hurry up and post this before the giant magenta caterpillars with Sarah Palin’s face start eating my breakfast.

    • Do you really think other countries in the world follows your Lefty world-view?  Every country in the world does this.  EVERY.  SINGLE.  ONE.

      You just happen to travel in countries that do it quietly, but sternly.  If an individual’s status cannot be absolutely verified, they are taken into custody until such time as it is.  Try traveling in countries where justice is not so quitely applied, where your legal missteps are administered on the spot.  No papers?  Somebody will get dead – and quickly!

      You may now go back to your Ivory F*cking Tower and tell all your friends in the Teacher’s Lounge how you saw such horrible things on your world travels and continue to regale us about the state of the US from your fevered lefty little mind.

      • Horrible, but….(Scott sighs wistfully) if only we could be more European in our world view.  Well, apart from the icky reality things they do that make them worse than us, though really no one is worse than us, we’re the worst at everything – our military is too big, we interfere in other people’s countries when they ask us to, we have one of the worst health care systems in the world, our economic markets are too free wheeling, and we don’t love our Dear Leader nearly as much as North Korea loves theirs.  But we should be more like the Europeans (except for the checking papers thing, that’s just crazy talk….)

    • My Asian wife was stopped in a French train station by a French policewoman of Arab descent. They did not want to see my papers either. Its probably because Americans and Europeans all have visa-free entrance into France, while other countries don’t.
      Or do you think French Arabs are racists?

    • And, just as a nod to REALITY…

      I was glad I didn’t live in a country where you always had to have your papers on hand to show authorities whenever they so demanded.

      Under Federal law, if you are here as a LEGAL alien (like you were in Germany, we presume), you DO have to have your papers with you, and produce them on demand.

      • My mother was a resident alien for about 50 years.  Yes, she carried her green card with her in her wallet.  That wasn’t so hard, was it Scott.

    • Do you know, Scott, if the police were looking for someone with specific characteristics because, maybe, they committed a crime or were some kind of threat?  If you don’t know that, Scott, your anecdote is worthless.  No, I am not leaving the veracity and applicability of this anecdote to your imagination.

      • I think you guys are over-reacting.  Read what I wrote.  I just said I liked living in a country where you didn’t have to carry your papers and show your ID.   But it might be that we need a national ID and will have to allow authorities to be able to demand to see our papers whenever they so choose.   I’m just saying I would not be happy to see that.

        • You need to see your doctor about adjusting your med, dude.

        • So, not only did the Germans ask for papers, they were clearly ‘profiling’ (note, based on the Germans I know, and your photo, you probably don’t necessarily fit the profile of ‘foreigner’ for a German if you aren’t talking).
          If we had better border security, we wouldn’t need to worry about asking for people’s papers because there wouldn’t be a tremendously pressing need to do so.  12 million illegals, one might note that only 7 states have populations OVER 10 million…. hell, the total population of New England is about 2 million MORE than that.  Think about it for a second.

        • The thing is Erb, it is not necessary, all that is necessary is that we stop businesses from hiring illegals and we stop giving illegals free welfare, food stamps, and medical care.

          Neither party is willing to do that, but not to worry, soon they will be forced to. You know why?


          • Fair enough.  But create a path to citizenship as part of this, and recognize that if we want more money we’ll ultimately need a labor force that helps our demographic profile, and maybe we can turn this into an advantage.

          • all that is necessary is that we stop businesses from hiring illegals and we stop giving illegals free welfare, food stamps, and medical care.

            Why stop businesses from hiring people who want to do honest work?  That’s between the two of them and it’s really none of your business.
            On the other hand, when they take from your paycheck to pay for welfare, that is your business.
            Learn to differentiate between the two.

          • “create a path to citizenship”
            WE HAVE ONE.  They just choose not to adhere to it.
            Your answer applied to bank robbers would be to create a method for them to legally withdraw someone elses cash they are not going to pay back.

  • It would be of some interest to see the results if AZ said, “Oh, OK.  Federal statutes must be upheld only by the federal government.  Well… So… I guess you won’t be coming to us for help in enforcing those FEDERAL banking laws, FEDERAL health care laws, FEDERAL unemployment laws, etc., right?”


    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    Keep pushing, a**hole.  Keep pushing.

    • what they ought to do is stop enforceing federal drug laws and just set up shop on the border and sell the drugs at a profit to whomever wants it.

      That would bypass the drug gang violence in their state.

      Then dare the Feds to do anything about it.

  • I scanned the ruling.
    It is WAY far out from rational, and hangs WAY too much on Hines.  A lot of it is just silly.
    It won’t stand, and I’d expect the judge to amend it herself to some degree.  It will go up for review, and it will be over-turned.

    • I doubt it. Unless the Scotus picks it up. I find it rather cute and quaint that you still believe that constitutional and legal arguments mean anything anymore.

  • This obviously isn’t the end of the road for the law, but I’d guess it’s on life support as the appeals process goes forward. Bolton’s ruling is likely to reflect how the other levels of the federal judiciary will rule on the law.

    The case isn’t at the appellate level yet.  This was just a preliminary injunction.  The case has not been heard on the merits yet.  While it’s true that this would normally be a predictor that the FedGov will prevail in the case, that’s not necessarily so.  The judge issued the TRO on the eve of the law becoming effective.  By maintaining the status quo (i.e. by granting the TRO), the likelihood of harm is theoretically reduced.

    In short, this case is far from over.

    • My Federal procedure is dusty, but I think the ruling can be taken up immediately for review.
      Several elements of the ruling are just silly, as I noted, and others are counter to the actual jurisprudence in place.
      Any way you cut it, it is a BIG political LOSS for the Obami, and I think it will be reversed in the appellate process to a very substantial degree.  Arizona can simply reload on items that are ultimately struck down, like the provision allowing the LEOs to determine an offense that would mean deportation under Federal law (which I think is actually OK in practice).

      • I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that TRO’s aren’t appealable until they become permanent.

        In either event, this case ends p being decided by the SCOTUS most likely.  And agreed on the political implications.

  • I read the ruling and is poorly reasoned and poorly supported.  There is a very nice piece of circular reasoning.   It goes something like this.  If the Arizona law goes into effect, then the federal government will be required to respond to Arizona’s inquiries.  But, the Federal Government would rather direct its resources elsewhere, regardless of what Congress has required.  Hence, the Federal Government will take too long to respond and that will result in the detention of people whose immigration is being questions.
    That is a strange ruling.  The Feds can’t actually do what they are suppose to do, so the states can’t do anything that might actually require the feds to do what they are not doing.
    Bolton is not a judge.  She is a political hack just like Kagin.

    • One standard for an injunction is a showing of “permanent and irreversible harm”.  The judge found both in the assertion by the Feds that they would have to expend so much in the way of resources to illegals that it would affect other priorities.
      Two BIG things wrong with that…
      1. it is an admission that the illegal deal is out of control, and they have no intention to try to control it, and
      2. that is neither “permanent” or “irreversible” (first, it isn’t even demonstrable, and second, it could be addressed with an increase in resources).
      As I said, this ruling won’t stand.