Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Arizona's law, known as SB1070, was passed in 2010 amid voter frustration with the state's role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five other states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- have adopted variations.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Federal Judge OKs AZ 'Show Me
Your Papers' Immigration Law

AP/FOX News
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Arizona authorities can enforce the most contentious section of the state's immigration law, which critics have dubbed the "show me your papers" provision.

The ruling by US District Judge Susan Bolton clears the way for police to carry out the requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.

The provision has been at the center of a two-year legal battle that resulted in a US Supreme Court decision in June upholding the requirement, ruling against the Obama administration, which filed the initial challenge.

The Obama administration declared a measure of victory at the time, as the court said local police cannot detain anyone on an immigration violation unless federal immigration officials say so.

After the nation's highest court weighed in, opponents asked Bolton to block the provision outright by arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions of Latinos if it's enforced.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, however, urged the judge to let the requirement go into effect, saying the law's opponents were merely speculating in their racial profiling claims. The Republican governor's office also said police have received training to avoid discriminatory practices and that officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally to trigger the requirement.

In her ruling, Bolton said the court will not ignore the clear direction from the Supreme Court that the provision "cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect." She reiterated the high court's interpretation that the law might be able to be challenged as unconstitutional on other grounds.

The Obama administration's case was based on the argument that federal immigration law trumped Arizona law. The challenge didn't confront racial profiling.

Arizona's law, known as SB1070, was passed in 2010 amid voter frustration with the state's role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five other states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- have adopted variations.

To the supporters, the questioning requirement was the most important part of Arizona's law, which aimed to reduce the problems associated with illegal immigration through enforcement of the state's policy.

Immigrant rights groups say the requirement presents the most opportunities for civil rights abuses.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server