http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110411/us_yblog_thelookout/appeals-court-upholds-injunction-on-ariz-immigration-law
None of this would even be an issue if the federal government were simply enforcing the law and defending the borders in the first place. How do you interfere in the federal government's job that it isn't doing?
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that last year blocked parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law from taking effect, arguing the law interfered with the federal government's exclusive right to set and enforce immigration laws. The law required local cops to verify the immigration status of people they suspected might be in the country illegally.
"That fifty individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained," wrote Judge John Noonan in the opinion [pdf]. (Judge Carlos Bea dissented, writing he thought Arizona police officers could ask about immigration status without infringing on the federal government's territory.)
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer appealed federal judge Susan Bolton's July decision against the law to the higher court. Bolton blocked elements of the law that require police to check detainees' immigration status, make it a crime for foreigners to go without their papers or apply for jobs, and allow law enforcement to make arrests without warrants on suspected illegal immigrants. "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens," Bolton wrote in her decision, which sided with most of the Obama administration's arguments against the law.
The 9th Court has ruled that Bolton did not overstep the court's authority in enjoining those parts of the law.
The Obama administration sued to block the law, arguing that it infringed upon the federal government's authority to regulate immigration. The law sparked a national debate about illegal immigration, and inspired conservative lawmakers in many states to introduce similar bills, though none have passed.
We'll update this post with comment from Brewer when she gets back to us. In November, Brewer said she would appeal any negative outcome and plans to take the case to the Supreme Court.
None of this would even be an issue if the federal government were simply enforcing the law and defending the borders in the first place. How do you interfere in the federal government's job that it isn't doing?