Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona’s Immigration Law

Just weeks after the Justice Department announced it would sue Arizona over its violation of Federalism with the laws heralded as “immigration reform,”it appears as though the Draocnian measures may have been permanently immobilized. Earlier today, NPR reported United States District Judge Susan Bolton has stopped key parts of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect, including the section that would authorize police in the state to ask about immigration status of individuals they stop for other reasons.

“The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents – including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws,” The Associated Press writes. “The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, andmade it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.”

Already, the news is being heralded as a victory.

Marisol Torrez, scheduled to be a junior at Kansas State University in the upcoming fall, thinks justice has been served.

“I think they’re looking at this law, and seeing that there are parts which basically legalize racial profiling,” she says. “Especially when other states started coming forward, thinking that Arizona must be on to something and that this could be a really good idea for them to follow. They’re finding out that it isn’t such a good idea.”

Torrez’s sentiment has merit. Since Arizona first began pushing for more substantial legislation against illegal immigration several months ago, sentiment targeting undocumented workers has been running high. Various news sources reported that the tourism industry of Arizona has already suffered a staggering blow to the tune of several millions due to various Arizona boycotts. More problematically, 2010 wasn’t an ideal year for Arizona to be re-thinking their economic growth.

“Arizona isn’t really in a position to lose any business,” Besty Schiffman writes for DailyFinance.com. “The real estate market in Phoenix was among the hardest hit in the wake of the housing bubble. Not to mention, two of its most significant revenue sources — income taxes and sales taxes — are down by one-third since they peaked in 2007. And they aren’t expected to return to return to 2007 levels until 2015. After the economy cratered a couple years ago, Arizona also saw a steep decline in its hospitality business as corporations cut back on conventions and trade shows.”

Another slam to the state’s economy comes from the departure of the very individuals SB 1070 targets–the undocumented workers, and those who look like them. While a recent article in The Los Angeles Times questions how much of an impact fleeing Latino residents is ultimately having on the state, other sources are seeing the mass migration as devastating to an already-uncertain economic status.

“About one in three people in Arizona is Latino, and about 40 percent are 17 or younger. In Arizona, Latinos accounted for 16 percent of all purchases in the state, or $31 billion in spending, according to a report by the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” Daniel Gonzalez writes for Arizona Central on June 29.

But advocates of SB 1070 dismiss the importance of that $31 billion, saying that the immigration reform was necessary to spur economic growth and encourage the availability of jobs to American citizens, and that those currently experiencing any economic backlash are “additional victims of illegal immigration,” experiencing an artificial boost in business due to the inability of the government to fully regulate the immigration problem.

Neither side ultimately received recognition in court. The main area of contention for the Obama administration, culminating in Attorney General Eric Holder’s suit against the state, is the violation of Federalism. The provisions of SB 1070 makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, breaking with Federal powers to determine rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

“The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,” the text of the lawsuit asserts.

Advocates for the suit insist that Arizona’s legislation, originally intended to go into effect on July 29, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. It’s an argument compelling even some Republican forces, including Meghan McCain, to clash with her father John in stating, “I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents” on her blog post at The Daily Beast.

This article of the bill has been effectively rendered toothless, however, by Judge Bolton’s decision.

“It’s definitely not what they were hoping for,” Torrez says, reading over the ruling’s fine print. “It isn’t exactly a victory for civil rights, but it isn’t a victory for those who want to take them away, either.”

SB 1070’s champion, Arizona governor Jan Brewer, responded to the latest development by insisting Bolton’s ruling is a “bump in the road” towards immigration reform.

While the US may be successful in preventing the law from reaching additional fruition based on the “separation of powers” argument, it’s equally as likely individuals will keep pushing for more legislation seeking to punish individuals for their questionable citizenship status.

Share this: