Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Helplessness and Anarchy

    Helplessness and Anarchy

    The result of the injunction granted today by the federal court in Arizona preventing the key provisions of S.B. 1070 from taking effect is not just the maintenance of the status quo.

    At a legal level, it is true that nothing has changed. S.B. 1070 never took effect, so no law was lost.

    At a more realistic level, everything has changed.

    States have been left helpless to deal with the anarchy created by the failure of the federal government to enforce border security. Whereas yesterday it was unclear how far states (such as Rhode Island) could go, today states are powerless.

    The inability of a state to implement a policy of checking the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime is remarkable.

    While I cannot blame the Judge for striking some provisions of S.B. 1070 (particularly those creating independent criminal sanctions), the ruling as to checking the status of people already under arrest is mind-numbing.

    As a reader to my prior post points out, states already routinely run searches for a variety of statuses, including outstanding warrants, child support orders, and non-immigration identity checks. Each of these checks potentially could delay release of an innocent person or burden some federal agency.

    The Judge’s reasoning, particularly that the status check provision violated the 4th Amendment even as to persons already under arrest, applies just as easily to these other status checks.

    With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on “comprehensive” immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.

    As it stands this afternoon, it is perfectly rational for someone faced with the choice of obeying the immigration laws or not, to choose not to do so. The choice of lawlessness makes a lot more sense than spending years winding through the byzantine legal immigration system, because the end result will be the same but lawlessness gets you here more quickly.

    When the law and the federal government reward lawlessness, something is very wrong.

    Update 7-29-2010: As others have noted, the Judge enjoined the checking of status of arrestees by reading the second sentence of Section 2(B) (“Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is arrested”) as completely independent of the first sentence, which requires reasonable suspicion prior to a status check. That reading by the Judge plainly is wrong, since the first sentence specifically references the requirement of reasonable suspicion after “any lawful stop, detention or arrest….” (emphasis mine) The language of the statute fully supported the state’s position, which the judge rejected, that the state only intended to check the status of arrestees as to whom there was reasonable suspicion, and who did not have any of the accepted forms of identification. Given the Judge’s rulings on preemption and the 4th Amendment, I’m not sure the result would have been any different had she read the statute correctly.

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    If you look at the early Founder's discussions of immigration, they wanted States to be impotent in questions of immigration, for which they demanded just 2 years residency to gain citizenship. It's always disturbing to me to see how many Tories of the John Adamas persuasion still exist on the right, always longing for the old Alien and Sedition Acts.

    It's disturbing to me to see an American who pretends that we still live at a time when immigration to the States took several months and the death toll was high. Upon arrival, the immigrant would find that 2 years' residency also meant 2 years' self-supporting labor and no emergency rooms, access to public education for his children, etc. Oh, that's EXACTLY like now!

    cf said (July 28, 2010 6:28 PM)

    "I do not see the voters continuing to allow the feds to avoid their obligations … "

    What makes you think "the voters" still have any say? Just as they have for over 200 years, candidates will say what they think we want to hear, and we'll elect them because of their promises. THEN they will find they're in thrall to the Party and the PAC's and the Big-Money contributors and their lobbyists. And THEN, they will fold like wet paper bags.

    Our "elected representatives" have spent the last 18 months ignoring us, preferring instead to slavishly follow the lead of this Most Corrupt Administration (which in turn chooses to dismiss our outrage as merely "those bitter clingers" not comprehending the New Age of Wonderful being bestowed upon us by our Superior Ruling Class).

    About the only difference I can see between Obama and King George is that Obama isn't quartering his troops among us. Yet.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend