July 28th, 2010
02:09 PM ET

Toobin: What does Arizona immigration ruling mean?

A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled the federal government "is likely to succeed" in its challenge of the legality of one of the most controversial sections of the Arizona law. That provision required police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst, spoke with T.J. Holmes on "CNN Newsroom" and offered his immediate reaction to the ruling and what it could mean for Arizona and other states.

What exactly did the judge rule?

The judge ruled that certain provisions are unconstitutional, but parts of the law she approved. The most controversial of which is the duty forced on law enforcement officers to determine if immigrants are people reasonably suspected of being illegal are in fact illegal. That has been struck down temporarily.

The judge said this - the requirement of law enforcement officials to essentially make all possibly illegal immigrants show their papers - is a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of federal sovereignty and federal control of immigration matters.

That argument was the one maintained by the Obama administration. Many civil rights groups argued it was simply discriminatory towards Hispanics.

The judge struck down the law on the ground that it was a violation of the federal control of immigration matters. That's why the controversial provision at least for the time being will not go into effect.

So what happens now?

Some of it will have to do with the legal strategy followed by the state of Arizona here. The state of Arizona could ask the judge to revisit the issue after more fact-finding. They could also go directly to the Court of Appeals - which is the next up in the federal court structure.

I think this is a case very much destined for United States Supreme Court. It is the kind of big issue relating to the responsibilities of state versus federal government on a very important matter, so it's likely, given how much attention this law received that other states will be passing similar laws. I think the Supreme Court will get involved probably next year. The issue that's up in the air is will the law be in effect while the appeals process goes forward? At the moment the answer is no - at least this one provision. But certainly an appeals process will begin. If not immediately, then soon.

Filed under: Arizona • Immigration
soundoff (306 Responses)
  1. karek40

    What can you expect from a federal court where the judges are appointed. Someone has to be willing to address this problem. Neither the Dems or Reps will, now the court rules with its appointer. Another case of the fox in charge of the henhouse.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carol

      Judges have a great deal of knowledge about the law that you will never have. You obviously never went to law school.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      What problem? The problem of cheap labor? The problem of inexpensive food? The problem that the Obama administration has deported more people in 18 months than the Bush administration did in 8 years, while deploying the National Guard to the border instead of using them in foreign wars?

      Or did you mean the problem of racism? Yeah, something does need to be done about that.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • nolemmings

      Carol how do you know if a person did or did not go to law school based on a post? You don't. And unless you have lived under a rock your entire life you would also know that judges are often appointed based on their views and in many cases political affiliation. This happens because while they have a vast knowledge of the law, they are asked to interpret it, and of course often their interpretation is going to be based on their views.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      nolemmings: You CAN tell that karek40 never went to law school from his/her post. ANYONE who went to law school would know that under the preemption doctrine the Arizona law stood almost no chance of being unheld. And yes, even the lawyers arguing that it should be upheld know it, but they have a political agenda (not to mention that they are being paid to make their arguments).

      July 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • John C

      You mean that when Bush fired the federal attorney's for poltical reasons and the right supported that?

      July 28, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • mark c

      You are clueless. A Federal Judge with a lifetime appointment is exactly the type of person who can decide cases like these without outside influence.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay in NC

      Ken, the operative word is 'almost'.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
      In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

      July 28, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think it through

      Dave, this comes up a lot and I just have to point it out. You mention both racism and cheap labor/food in the same post, but have you really thought about what you're saying? The labor and food are only cheap because the way illegal immigrants are used now is horribly unfair. You cant use both arguments to appear sympathetic to the illegal immigrant population because what you're really saying is "hey, I like you guys, and keeping you as second class citizens so my food can be cheap, my yard can be tended to for below minimum wage, and my nanny has to work whenever I want her to else I'll report her'. You're not doing anyone any favors by looking the other way in this argument, and it actually seems MORE racist to sweep the problem under the rug rather than demand it be fixed so that people stop coming here illegally to be treated poorly by people who want cheap goods and services.

      July 28, 2010 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • md

      Nice Rick. Way to cite actual precedents. Surely Judge Bolton had access to these in her briefs?

      July 28, 2010 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • SoArizona

      What we want to hear from the Federal Government; Rather than suing and condemning.

      Dear Citizens of Arizona,
      We certainly understand your concerns over these immigration issues.
      We do understand that daily, drugs are brought in by illegals.
      We do understand that illegals do have an economic impact on this great nation.
      We do understand that the border is open and unprotected and that radar is NOT a solution.
      We do understand that the protection of the nation lies in the hands of the Federal Gov.
      We do understand that you have legitimate concerns that need dealt with immediately.
      We will do all that we can to enforce the Federal laws that are currently on the books.
      We will secure and protect the borders of these United States in a reasonable and timely fashion.
      We have heard your plight and prayers.

      We will do what is necessary to maintain security in these United States.
      We will do what is necessary to protect the border.
      We will protect YOU

      July 28, 2010 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Apparently you never heard of the separation of powers as the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government.

      July 28, 2010 at 11:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • afraidofheights

      If the federal government politicians could resist the urge to act like children and not think exclusively about how their positions will impact the mid-terms and Latino vote in the out years, we would have reasonable legislation at the federal level. We would not have to litigate a state’s immigration policy.

      For another take on the AZ immigration law which is both serious and wicked FUNNY, check out this link:


      July 29, 2010 at 1:31 am | Report abuse |
    • D

      I really don't understand this entire deal. If Americans travel to Mexico, we are required to have certain papers with us at all times or if we travel to Europe, same deal. Now Az is asking the samething?????? What is the problem?? Officers are there to enforce the law.........period!!!! Let them do there jobs........PERIOD!!! My Father entered the US legally and became a US citizen LEGALLY. My wife entered the US LEGALLY and became a US citizen LEGALLY!!! So should everyone else....There are no freebies.........Keep the USA great and if a citizen from another country does not respect our laws in the USA (like all US citizens are required to do) send them to jail or kick them out.........PERIOD!!!!!! I get pulled over by the police, I must produce an ID..........I'm a US citizen, i have no problem with that..........then again, I have nothing to hide.........Stop crying people becuase you have something to hide and help make AZ a safe state...

      July 29, 2010 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kenneth Hudson

      Wow. Some people want to bend over backwards give them more rights than the average citizen. I SAY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS IF YOU ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. PERIOD.

      July 29, 2010 at 9:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Krush1961

      The only time I can remember someone yelling racism is from a racist themselves. I am so tired of hearing this word being slung about for no reason other than as an attention grabber. Wake up America

      September 12, 2010 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • lftryagain

      Carol, sure Judges have knowledge, and guess what they were before they were judges? Lawyers! That right there is enough to tell me what kind of charachter (not) they have!

      September 15, 2010 at 6:27 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Winston Court

    I can't imagine why this judge would strike it down. Isn't totally lawful to ask someone for ID if they are suspected of committing a violation, misdemeanor, or felony. If not, why shouldn't I just give them your name and go about my business without worry of punishment? Something is quite rotten here.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      You are not required to carry an ID. A lot of us carry IDs because we drive cars, want to drink at a bar, fly in an airplane, etc. But we, as Americans, are not required to carry any form of identification when you are just walking down the street. We could of course have a national ID law but there are a lot people on both the right and the left of the political spectrum who find this idea abhorent. I personally don;t see what the big deal is in carrying an ID with you at all times.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • kabbiblez

      the 4th amendment to the consitution states that unless you are viewed to be in violation of the law then you cannot be approached by law enforcement without a warrant issued by a judge....

      simple as that...

      July 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • JHH

      Perhaps you should read the order. It is explained. A pdf is available on website. It's much better to be informed.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jason

      the fourth amendment says no such thing ...

      July 28, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Howard

      A strict constructionist judge is supposed to rule on the basis of the law, not on public sentiment. That's what this judge tried to do. Obviously, if she was ruling based on sentiment, she would either have thrown out the entire law or given the entire law a pass. That didn't happen. Sounds like a pretty fair-minded judge to me.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Howard

      Besides, your driver's license or SS card is no proof of your citizenship or your lawful presence in the United States. Very few immigrants have ever carried those papers around with them.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Greg of L.A.

      The question is separation of powers and jurisdiction. The federal government is saying that they don't want the individual states to be shaping immigration policy because that falls within their powers.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      The laws differ for some states but for the most part there is no law requiring a US citizen of carrying ID unless they engaged in an activity that requires a license such as driving, hunting, or fishing for example. If you have committed a crime or you are in violation of an civil ordinance they you must show ID or you can be taken into custody until your ID can be determined. The Police can not come up to a person and demand for that person to show ID if that person is not violating any laws. that would be a form of harassment that the law does not allow. Then again I was in the Military for 28 years and any person of senior rank could demand to see my ID at any time and by the regs I had to show it and was required to carry ID at all time

      July 28, 2010 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      @ Howard.
      An AZ issued DL or ID is proof of citizenship or legal residency.
      Why? Because you are required to show proof BEFORE one is issued to you.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • IfYouSeekMe

      Greg makes a valid point, and one that (unfortunately) also makes sense in the judicial ruling.

      The frustration here becomes this: Federal government says "this is my job, my responsibility, my privilege", then completely turns a blind eye to it. If the states can't take up the slack where the Federal government refuses to perform, then a huge vacuum of power exists.

      It really sucks.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • John C

      What is rotten here is that this was just a political stunt to begin with. The right filled the media with deliberate lies and misundertanding about this law and continue to try to use it as a poltical football. THis is not an end to immigration and does not mean the borders are open as they like to pretend. More is being done than ever in the past and thier sudden "outrage" over inaction is about potlics, not problem solving. This administration has promised to address the issue that was ignored by every one since the republicans granted amnesty and did nothing to close the boarders , resulting in the massive problem we now face. Those same people think you are to stupid to realize that this is just an election year game that they can spin, twist and lie into points for the GOP. That is why they are such lousy leaders, everything is poltics and all they know are lieing and games. IF you are sick of the nonsense in government today, you better do everything yuo can to keep them from getting back into power. Games like this just make it harder to actually solve problems and will likely weaken the reform that is comming. The played games with intel, and look how that turned out, lets not let them play games with our national security anymore!

      July 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay in NC

      kabbiblez, you said that 'the 4th amendment to the consitution states that unless you are viewed to be in violation of the law then you cannot be approached by law enforcement without a warrant issued by a judge....', it is not that simple.
      An officer can also stop you if you may have information about a crime. There are many reasons you could be detained and more importantly show your ID.

      simple as that...

      July 28, 2010 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • RickA

      Facts be damned. Let's just argue the spin, and not worry about really understanding what the law says.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • idb

      You are totally right. A legal immigrant has to have his/her identification on the person at all times. Therefore there is no problem to show an id. If a driver of a car gets stopped for a traffic violation he/she has to show a mandatory drivers license. A person walking in the street will not be stopped unless suspected of a crime. The only people worried about this law are illegal aliens and people that do not know the law or have something to hide. The ruling of this judge is therefore bogus. She probably got paid off.

      July 28, 2010 at 8:37 pm | Report abuse |
  3. fishfry001

    Then it's definitely time to re-relect a Republican-dominated administration that will actually enforce our immigration laws at the federal level. We don't need "Comprehensive Immigration reform", there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws. Arizona's SB 1070 has already proven that enforcement will work as many illegals were leaving Arizona in advance of the law taking effect. Self-deportation will save the government vast sums of money. Next, businesses should be harshly targeted for their hiring of illegal aliens. E-Verify, fines and even jail time for repeat offenders is the next step. There won't be any effective challenges to those provisions in the courts – guaranteed.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • David B.

      The repubs did nothing for 8 years and now they are the almighty? HAAAAAAAAAA Go DEMS!!

      July 28, 2010 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Louis

      Fish, let me get this right...since January 2009, when Obama took office, you are saying that the immigration systems has completely collapsed? Not blaming Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or Nixon, but the immigration system has been brokened for a while and no party that has controlled congrress has put forth any suggestions or proposed any laws to fix it. Any Senator can come up with a bill today to help rememdy the problem but no one has done so at this point. We have seen the problems that "state" laws can caused.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • heyguy101

      What evidence do we have at a Republican dominated adminstration would handle this "better"? Please give examples to support your theories.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      Uhh, Bush wanted Amnesty for all illegals, dummy.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • GW

      The Republicans had the chance to do it, but Bush and McCain wanted to give them all amnesty.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      You do realize that the last Republican Administration was also accused of "not enforcing our laws" right.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      Bush sat on his hands for 8 years.

      *Reagan* gave amnesty to several million illegal immigrants under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which "granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982"

      So, go ahead. Elect a Republican administration if you can. Let's see them do better. Hint: They won't.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • dleary

      You imagine that people leaving Arizona are going to Mexico rather than California, New Mexico or Texas?

      July 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      I will cancel out your right wing paranoid schizophrenic vote in November, you can count on that.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • R. Mussared

      I agree! I want all states to adopt this law

      July 28, 2010 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Texas Pete

      Not a very valid argument since you all think Bush is a moron anyways. Are you saying Obama should play down to Bush's level?

      July 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • CentralOregon

      Please do not try that Republican con line. They did nothing under Bush, who got the problem from Clinton, who got the problem from Bush, who etc. Neither party wants to touch this issue. They want the illegal votes. They want the families of the illegals to vote for them. They want the friends of the illegals to vote for them. They want the businesses who exploit these poor people to keep sending them money.

      Obama has done some things that he should be held accountable for. But this is just pure political spin.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • DKJ

      They are (Presidents) are responsible about the lack of protections on our borders. How ever Bush & the present adminstration should have made sure our borders were well protected before they started wars and still want to invade more countries. As for the illegal immagrant problem why isn't the government going after the employers who hire them and the state & federal programs that encourage them to come here illegally.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay in NC

      David B., you say 'The repubs did nothing for 8 years...'.
      Wow, such a grand claim. Do you view all subjects with such a narrow point of view? First dems blame Republicans for doing everything wrong now you blame them for doing nothing. You all need to get together and decide your point of view. Oh, yea, hows that hope and change working for ya?

      July 28, 2010 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Harvey

      As long as either party looks at the "upside " of all these committed voters they can buy by doing nothing, why should either party address it. The states deal with the cost and crime of illegals, and I'm not talking about honest people who come here to find work, and make money for their families. I've seen them take crap jobs, like day work, and sleep in hot garages just to make a decent living. I'm talking about those that come here to sell drugs and guns. And I am talking about the folks who are willing to take the handouts of health care and education without kicking in for it.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Fishfry–very very well put. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with such logical thought.

      August 24, 2010 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
  4. buccakenji

    If this is a federal matter, then sue the Federal Government for not executing their responsibility of securing our borders and enforcing existing immigration laws. These are definitely issues very easy to prove.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobInIrvine

      Who would sue? You as a citizen don't have the right to sue the federal government over enforcement or non-enforcement of federal laws and regulations. It's called having "standing," and you don't. Case dismissed.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • DKJ

      And to think the United States government brags about being the best & fairest and preaches democracy and yet we have a government who caters to forgein countrys instead of their legals system. Oh as a Democracy we should be allowed to know if our president became so legally since you have to be a born citizen to be president and he refuses to show us all his legal birth certificate. ILLEGAL SUPPORTING ILLEGALS go figure. But of course anyone that speaks out against the system or the protections of our borders are racist. Why do we have troops in the middle east and why are they preaching demorcracy? And people wonder why the world is laughing at us & not taking us seriosly. Come one & all our borders are wide open and for get the check stands I am sure we have many neighbors who will show you the way.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Sarah

    Yeah fishfry, cause the last republican dominated administration we had DID SOOOO MUCH while they were in power. The Republicans are lazy do nothings...except for starting wars and giving tax breaks to billionaires..WOO HOO

    July 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rita403

      Yes, Bush did give us a war in Iraq we did not need...but the Bush tax credits didn't just give breaks to the wealthy, who help generate most of jobs in this country, but let it expire for you too girlie, and see how you squeal because you are benenfitting from it too! At least he didn't push a health care bill down our throats we didn't want, a stimus program that hasn't worked, etc., etc., and now a financial reform bill that took away the discloesure laws for big business and wall street. Now all they have to answer to is the corrupt congress..... A for all the debt BUSH put us in, who has been in control of Congress since 2006 where all the spending bills are passed??????? The Democrats!!!!!!!

      July 28, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay in NC

      Sarah, Afghanistan is Obama's war. He could have ended it but he chose to kill more children and devastate one of the poorest countries in the world. So much for a better world. Obama has failed as a president.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • DKJ

      If you think the democrates care anymore than the republican then you are more niave then me. Money rules not the people.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • LuvCO

      RIGHT ON Sara! I couldn't have said it better and to the point!!!

      July 28, 2010 at 5:19 pm | Report abuse |
  6. evelin

    I wonder were you screamers went during the Bush years! Do you think illegal immigration started with President Obama, who wanted to start talks on immigration but the Rrepublican didn't!

    July 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carol

      Right on!

      July 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Texas Pete

      Heck, you expect Bush to do something constructive? Talk about indecisive. You can't seem to decide if you want Bush to be an incompetent moron who doesn't know better, or an evil savant intent on wrecking the country. He can't be both!

      July 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Okie

      I'm guessing you weren't paying attention during the Bush years, say about 2007...

      July 28, 2010 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dennis

      I think there were quite a few private citizens down patrolling the border during the Bush presidency trying to do something about this. Their point of view was that if the Government wasn't going to do something then they would. Anther question not related to your post... Is it racist to believe that there should be some protectionism by a Government to its citizenry? That economic prosperity during a time of double didgit unemployment might require some more protections than when we have a 4-6% unemployment. Just a thought.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • OHVillager

      It's Bush's fault! Geeez, I didn't see that coming. You didn't see Bush suing a state for trying to enforce laws either.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Malby

      Folks like me who lived in California have been "screaming" about this since the Clinton years–as far back as the Kennedy immigration hornswaggle in 1986–the "last amnesty" wherein the feds promised to start enfocring our laws. Bush was awful, Obama is awful, it's all politics and little rationality. The Democrats need voters (though how many illegals ever make it, I wonder) and the Republicans need slave labor. As one commenter has already pointed out, you can't have it both ways. You all know that illegals are being treated badly, yet you seek to allow them to stay here in clear violation fo the law. Hhhmmmm.

      July 29, 2010 at 9:00 pm | Report abuse |
  7. nomorelawsandorder

    Since Federals want to deport illegal immigrants who in the country long enough, If stopped in border area, illegal border crossers should tell Feds as they hiking in border area, but actually crossed border illegally long time ago. “Migration” problem will disappear and everyone in the world who want to be American should get tourist’s visa and overstay in US or to get to Mexico and cross border illegally. Then start family, have a baby and apply for food stamps, free school and other social services. The only problem US cities go broke…but that is another problem.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      Most US cities get a lot of income from sales taxes. Illegals buy things. Things that have sales taxes on them. Cities make money.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • indiana

      what about income tax that is not taken from the illegals wages!?!?!

      July 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Malby

      Do you really honestly believe that illegals pay taxes? Sales taxes–on what, their submarket wages, after the billions in remittances they send home to prop up their corrupt governments? ANd income taxes–give me a break! If they pay any, they get it all back, and more–it's called the earned income tax "credit"

      July 29, 2010 at 9:02 pm | Report abuse |

    Sue the FEDs for not doing their flipping jobs. It's time for holder to GO AWAY!!!

    July 28, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • mama panda

      So now it's Holder's fault? How nonsensical can you get?

      July 28, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • GW

      None of the AGs have done their jobs; this includes Ashcroft and Gozales (e.g. the latter for obvious reasons).

      July 28, 2010 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      Mama Panda - "ArmyVet" mentioned Eric Holder because that is what he heard Rush Limbaugh talking about today. These right wingers don't have the capacity to think anything other than what Limbaugh or Hannity tell them to think.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • OHVillager

      Mama Panda it is becasue Holder is suing a state that is trying to enforce laws that he is unwilling to.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • USAF Vet

      Like ArmyVet, I too swore to protect and defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic.
      It does not matter which party is in power, no one seems to want to let the military work on the domestic portion of our oath. Many of us would not have a problem working in the heat of our own deserts versus the deserts of the Middle East. As one of hispanic decent, I do support AZ's law and their right to draft it. A Domestic enemy is any person regardless of race/religion/nation/creed who act or take part in actions detrimental to the security (physical/financial/etc) of this nation. Until people on both sides realize illeagel exactly means "forbidden by law or statute"...this problem will never go away. Our nation is afraid of "hurting feelings" now; though they do so at the expense of its CITIZENS.

      July 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  9. sagebrush

    And once again the law abiding citizens of the United States are ignored in favor of criminals.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kate

      Lots of law abiding citizens were ignored when they ruled on Brown V. School Board. Really, it was for the best. Most of them got over it.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Scotsman2001

    This is such bull crap!!! The people of Arizona have had their wishes overturned by a fed judge with no interest in the troubles of the State. So she wants illegals to not be challenged – that is crap. I am a LEGAL immigrant and I detest the ILLEGALS who jump the queue. I am required to carry my green card, but illegals are not? What SH!T is this?

    Hey Zeus

    July 28, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carlos Acevedo

      Scotsman2001 said: "I am required to carry my green card, but illegals are not?"

      So you want illegal to carry a green card as you are required to go? If illegal carry greencards that would make them legal. LOL!

      July 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • MM22314

      You should understand what the ruling means before you star writing stupid comments. It just saying that the AZ can not make their own immigration laws. It doesnt prevent AZ to enforce current immigration laws, which include arrest of legal and ilegals and turn iligals to federal imigration enforment. What the injuction prohibits is the unreasonable detention and arrest of those who cannot be determined to be legal or illegal within a reasonable amount of time.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |

      hey moron,
      of course Illegals are not required to carry their green cards, you know why? because, they do not have any!!!!!

      July 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scotsman2001

      Right, the federal guvment has said I need to carry proof of the right to be in the country. It appears illegals are not required to carry proof of the right to be in the country. What is wrong with this picture?

      July 28, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leilani in AZ

      Its VERY annoying to see ignorant remarks about our state situation. Until you've spent time in the Tucson sector or with anyone in law enforcement here – keep your comments to yourself. I'm sure in IOWA there is no border violence, killing, drug smuggling. But we deal with the toll in both lives lost and enormous amount of taxpayer $$ to deal with this situation. And until President Obama has the courage to come out here for himself to SEE the situation instead of spout off about it without any knowledge (i.e. the ice cream remark) then we as a state have to figure out how to handle our security and rights as CITIZENS to live lawfully. Its a LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL issue and not a race issue. FYI – we don't just have illegal mexicans. We love our diversity as much as any other state. But every other state doesn't have the economic toll we do in dealing with illegal activity, violence, murder and smuggling. Period.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • DKJ

      Only is the US. The bottom is this is not about race or even what the majority wants. The bottom line is the money mongrals rule and the can use & abuse illegals for cheap labor with the way our laws are. And racism is thrown in to divide the nation and take the focus off the issues. Welcome to the US where criminal and enemies of this country have more rights then any law-biding citizen. Any jobs in Scotland? I may have to leave my country to fine a job.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ursula

      Amen to that. As a legal resident since 1985 I have carried my green card every day and don't have a problem with that, Why shouldn't other immigrants show proof if they are stopped for some kind of infraction!! Hats off to Arizona for stirring things up as nothing of consequence has been happening yet! It's time to stop turning this into a racial issue.You want to live here and make a life for yourself do it legally and please, learn English! I also support getting rid of the law that you become an American just because you were born on american soil – wrong incentive! I live in Miami and hope we follow suit.

      July 28, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kennedy

      The judge was wise to make the decisions she did. It slows down the process and probably prevented some riots. I'll bet that in her heart, Gov. Brewer was relieved. She would not have looked good nor would Arizona if people were attacking each other in the streets. There needs to be time to cool down and efforts made to work on a reasonable Federal solution. Most of us came from immigrant backgrounds–not always completely legal either. We need to use common sense and compassion towards others who want the same things. Bigotry doesn't help.

      July 28, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Malby

      @mm2322: Your summary of the ruling s exactly wrong. And as for the "unreasonable detention and arrest of those who cannot be determined to be legal or illegal within a reasonable amount of time," riddle me this–where the heck is the person's green card? If they're here legally, they have it at all times. If they're citizens, they speak English (born here or learn it as prerequisite for citizenship). If they have no ID, and can't get some in a few hours, out they go. Stop pretending that innocent citizens and legal aliens are going to be affected in any way.

      July 29, 2010 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Eric


    If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard
    If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.
    If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
    If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.
    If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from
    If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy
    and your fate will be sealed.
    If you cross the Mexican borders illegally you will jailed for two years.
    If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political
    prison to rot.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marty Rogers

      eric: do you have a job? your rant is all over the internet!

      July 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |

      They're making a point D.A.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • AC

      How many illegal are in your house?
      Do you leave your doors and windows open when you leave the house?
      Are you ok if you find a strange in your house when you come back from work?
      Do you leave your car doors open?
      What do you do if someone you don't know is sitting in your chair and munching from your fridge?
      What is the difference between what am i asking you and illegal immigration?

      July 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kate

      ...and we'd all love to live in those lovely places, now wouldn't we?

      July 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Harvey

      Other than spies, why would anyone cross these borders to go into these countries anyway?

      July 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • phillip Marlowe

      That is the best post of the day!!

      July 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dale


      July 28, 2010 at 5:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cz25

      Wow what a twist, if you think this is what the people in the U.S. want. While someone trys to show what other crazy countries doo, it is twisted into the rally cry NOT! I am for all people who wish to find better jobs, security, and life for family, but is it too much to ask (no matter where in the world you are from) just do it legaly?
      I must ask have you even read any other countries immigration laws. Make ours in the U.S. look real petty.

      July 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm | Report abuse |


    July 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • JHH

      The judge was recommended for appointment by John Kyl, that sissy liberal.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • GW

      Bush didn't do crap to protect the border so get over it!

      July 28, 2010 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • OHVillager

      So because Bush didn't do anything Obama shouldn't. That is your excuse? Obama is sinking to Bush's level and that is Ok?

      July 28, 2010 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Shooter


    Maybe you should cross the border. Preferably in afghanistan.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Laura

    well, I now want my equal rights..I do not want to carry car insurance, the illegals don't, I don't want to pay for my healthcare, the illegals don't, I want free food stamps, utility bill discounts, housing ass't, fee reduced higher education, and I sure don't want to pay taxes on my income..they don't..I also don't want to carry any ID on my person, they don't have to and now neither do I...when can I expect to reap their benefits? I think we all should start a civil suit against the Gov't to obtain our equal rights...

    July 28, 2010 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      If you don't want to carry car insurance or a driver's license, that's fine. Just don't drive. If you want to remedy the rest of the problems you mentioned (which are very, very small problems, by the way) you need immigration reform that allows guest workers in, IDs them, tracks them, collects taxes, etc. All this law does is create bad press for Arizona, and cost the state millions and millions of dollars in legal challenges and law enforcement costs. This isn't saving anybody a dime.

      July 28, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laura

      Free healthcare to illegals is a HUGH problem...driving a car in this country with no insurance is a HUGH problem..all of our rates are going sky high cause we have to support the illegals and their illegal way of living and using the US for what they want or don't want to do..drug cartels in our country is a HUGH problem..slime crossing the border is a HUGH proble...it all adds up toa disaster for the legal US citizens...a HUGH problem..

      July 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim


      July 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      Hugh seems to have a lot of problems Laura. You should talk to him.

      July 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
  15. DesertDweller

    This is a legal issue, not one of public opinion. The judge has accurately stated that state law cannot replace federal law and that AZ cannot require local police to check immigration status. That is a matter for federal law enforcement. Wheather feds are actually doing this is something completely different than this legal case. Don't confuse the two. By the way, Judge Bolten was recommended for this position by Sen. Kyl to Pres. Clinton and she easily passed the Senate. It was a mutual agreement in politics. You can't have it both ways.

    July 28, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |

      Leave my country illegal!

      July 28, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • another desert dweller

      omg...there are two of us who are sane!

      July 28, 2010 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • xris


      July 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leilani in AZ

      from another desertdweller – finally a rational comment from someone presumably here in AZ. you are correct, however Gov. Brewer (and others) have felt this is what is necessary to FORCE the feds to do their jobs where immigration and border security are concerned. many other states are aligning themselves WITH us and not against us too. thats a good sign – imho. Change has to start somewhere, we can't continue to do NOTHING. We'll be unpopular being the first, but we could be the ones to force change. Which ironically was the Presidents mantra....

      July 28, 2010 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • OHVillager

      So if there is a kidnapping or a Bank robbery, then the local Police can't arrest the criminal, cuz it is a federal law? If police see someone run out of bank with a ski mask and a bag of money, do they have to get a warrent from a judge to stop and question them?

      July 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leilani in AZ

      Nope OH – any CRIME is detainable. That hasn't changed here. We were trying to get being ALSO here illegally detainable. You will still be pulled over for speeding, bank robbery, beating your wife, etc. They never were going to be allowed to stop someone strictly on illegal status. Thats the problem with mis-information. It isn't a racism issue at all – its about LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL. We as U.S. Citizens should all be concerned about this. Not just us in AZ.

      July 28, 2010 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dale

      Which means that the Federal Government needs to get off It's Ass & ENFORCE THE LAWS allready on the books. Because IF they Don't- The People WILL.

      July 28, 2010 at 5:31 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8