Mother Theresa wrote:TainanCowboy wrote:It’s Federal Law that LEGAL immigrants MUST have their papers on them. She said it was not required.
WTF are you talking about? My father's been a legal immigrant in the US since 1936 and he sure as hell isn't required to carry any papers (except a drivers license when operating a motor vehicle).
US Citizenship and Immigration ServicesA green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times. Current green cards are valid for 10 years, or 2 years in the case of a conditional resident, and must be renewed before the card expires.
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
If your father has become a citizen in the time since he immigrated to the US then he isn't required to produce ID (unless he wants to write a check, drive a vehicle, pay with a credit card, etc). If he's still a legal resident and not a citizen then he is required to carry a green card on him at all times.
Poor legal ruling...destined to be shit-canned...but it feels good.
Poor ruling? Tell me which of the following points she made do you disagree with.
1. There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens.
2. By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.
3. 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.
It's not likely to be shit-canned, because it's merely an injunction prohibiting the State from taking wrongful, harmful actions until the constitutionality has been clearly decided. Seems like a perfectly sound and reasoanable ruling to me.
You'd be one of the few who believe it to be a perfectly sound and reasonable ruling. I still havent figured out under what legal basis she blocked the portion of the law that prevented illegal immigrants from seeking work. If, by definition, they are illegally here in the US they cannot thereby legally seek work. To legally seek work you have to have an immigration status that allows you to work, i.e. a F1 visa holder (student visa) can't work if their visa doesn't allow so. If you don't have a legal right to be here, which illegal immigrants lack, how can you legally look for work?
To address the three points you brought up, I don't see any issue with #3. A TRO should have been expected by everyone involved with the case. Judge Bolton punted making an unpopular decision but you're right, there is no harm in issuing the injunction until the lawyers can better argue the case.
As to number 2, I'm not sure what burden is being placed on legal resident aliens. They are required to carry paperwork of their status at all times, as per the Nationality Act of 1940, so I don't see what additional burden is being placed on them. If Federal law requires that they have a green card on them at all times and now AZ law requires that also, what exactly has changed? What about the SB 1070 places an additional burden that the Federal requirements didn't already place?
Now to number 1. That is a compelling argument and concern. It is also irrelevant to the government's case. The Feds argued preemption, that the Federal government and only the Federal government has jurisdiction to address (or ignore) immigration. That's strictly a constitutional issue and whether or not legal resident aliens might get arrested has nothing to do with the argument. I would argue that legal resident aliens are
not more likely to be wrongfully arrested because when they produce the green card they are required to carry, which demonstrates a legal right to be in the US, they won't be arrested for an immigration violation.
Now where Judge Bolton got it very wrong was the substantive burden immigration checks would place on ICE. As William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection points out,
law enforcement officers already run status checks on individuals when they are arrested to look for outstanding warrants, identity checks, outstanding child support orders, etc. I fail to see how running an additional status check on immigration status is a 4th amendment violation or would inflict an undue burden on ICE.
Here's a piece by Andrew McCarthy at the National Review. He points out legal inconsistencies in Judge Bolton's arguments as well as two cases which would support AZ's arguments: Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Lynch v. Cannatella (1987).
