With all the other disagreements I have with Judge Susan Bolton's injunction on Arizona's controversial law, I would like to point out a few of her points in her own words as worthy of notice and comment.
“The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.”
“Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination(s),” she said.
“Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.”
Whether you agree with those statements is beside the point. These are not legal arguments. Whether or not something is a burden on law enforcement-or even in the public interest is irrelevant. They have nothing to do with legality or constitutionality. These are arguments that the judge should not have even considered.
And then there is this whopper.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked."
Excuse me, judge, but by your own words, the persons in question are arrested-in custody. So what is the problem of checking the immigration status of a person in custody? At what point can law enforcement check immigration status of a non-American prisoner? This goes to the other problem of sanctuary cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, who have released illegal alien gang members that have gone through the justice system without notifying ICE with the result that they have gone back to the streets and committed murders.
By the way, have you wondered why the US Justice Department isn't going after sanctuary cities who are following their own policies in contravention of federal law? After all, the reasoning the Obama administration used in this lawsuit is that Arizona is interfering in federal jurisdiction.
This is hardly about the law. This is about a political agenda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am generally critical of judges who cannot, or do not, take the time to frame their rulings in applicable legal standards. From the limited citations you offer here, this may indeed be yet another example. My own view on this extends all the way to how a South Carolina judge disposed of a case over a truck that deteriorated while in storage pending payment of a repair bill. No matter who was right, the judge had a duty to cite a statutory provision, or at least a common law criterion enshrined in an American precedent, when making his ruling. He did not.
Post a Comment