JUDGE BOLTON INVALIDATES PART OF ARIZONA’S IMMIGRATION LAW
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of “The Rise of Tyranny”
July 29, 2010
Judge Bolton’s Decision Invalidating Parts of New Arizona Immigration Law Should Be Overturned
The central premise of Judge Bolton’s decision enjoining four parts of Arizona’s immigration law rests on the faulty premise that the state law violates the doctrine of federal pre-emption. The law, however, is in aid of federal immigration law and neither obstructs nor increases penalties for immigration law violations. Moreover, it does not attempt to alter the standards used by the federal government in determining who is legally resident in this country. Indeed, the Arizona law is in aid of domestic law affected by illegals in Arizona who are contributing to drug and human trafficking and other serious crimes within the state.
The Judge held the following four parts of the statute unlawful encroachments on federal immigration law, based on the doctrine of pre-emption:
(1) the requirement that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the U.S. and that a person arrested be required to show proof of lawful immigration status prior to being released (Part of Section 2 of SB 1070);
(2) the creation of a new state crime in support of federal law that requires application for and carriage of alien registration papers (Section 3 of SB 1070);
(3) the creation of a new state crime in support of federal law that prohibits an unauthorized alien from soliciting, applying for, or performing work (Part of Section 5 of SB 1070); and
(4) the authorization of warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States under federal immigration law (Section 6 of SB 1070).
The Judge operates on two assumptions, that the Arizona law (1) will impose substantial burdens on lawful immigrants, exposing them to inquisitorial practices and police surveillance and (2) will impose a significant increase in costs on federal authorities contacted concerning suspected illegals detained, thus distracting the federal government from pursuing other immigration law enforcement priorities. She had no specific proof in the record to support either of these hypothetical propositions and yet throughout the decision presumes them to be true.