The 'show me your papers clause' of SB 1070 goes into effect

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a simple three-paragraph ruling drafted jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice and lawyers for the state of Arizona, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ordered that the injunction be dissolved against the "show me your papers clause" of SB 1070. That provision, Section 2B, requires officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. Police can start enforcing Ariz. immigration law, judge rules:

Bolton also ordered Tuesday that two other sections SB 1070 be permanently enjoined. Those sections required immigrants to carry immigration papers, required police to determine whether a person had committed an offense that could lead to deportation and barred illegal immigrants from seeking work.

Two other components, one that prohibited day laborers from blocking traffic while seeking work and another that forbade harboring or transporting illegal-immigrant criminals, have been enjoined as well.

Bolton had originally imposed the injunction of key parts of SB 1070 in July 2010 at the request of the Department of Justice, which sued to block the law from taking effect. The injunction was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then, in late June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all but one part of the injunction, Section 2B, and sent the case back to Bolton through the 9th Circuit.

[The high court ruled that Section 2B did not automatically violate constitutional rights and was not necessarily pre-empted by federal immigration law. But the justices suggested the matter could be reconsidered if evidence of violations surfaced after the law went into effect.]

A coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups tried to get the injunction reinstated on different grounds, but on Sept. 5, Bolton denied the request and ordered the state and the Justice Department to work out the wording of the order dissolving the injunction.

The civil rights coalition, meanwhile, has appealed Bolton's decision to the 9th Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court expressed skepticism that the "show me your papers clause" of SB 1070 could be enforced in a constitutional manner. In fact, the Court inferred that a legal challenge would find its way back to the Court and that it would likely find it unconstitutional. The only question now is how long it will take before that case arises. With crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, probably before the end of the week.

Comments

[Bess1919]

I am tired of my community (people who have been here a long time) being scared. When Obama wins the election, he simply must deal with this human rights issue.

[Richard Grayson]

This all ties in with Romney's 47% comment in the GOP's longstanding war against "the other." They will say they are not racist, not xenophobic, it's all about "border security" or "dependency," but it boils down to what Lee Atwater said about the old "Southern strategy," quoted today in The Atlantic by Ta-Nehisi Coates in "We Are All Welfare Queens Now":

>You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

In a way, the horrible SB 1070 is a more honest way of expressing racism than Romney's comments. And both, while reprehensible, make things very clear on whose side everyone is on. And who represents the sordid past and who the hopeful future of America. As Bess1919 said, people are tired of being scared. That's what happened in Montgomery and Selma and other places in the segregated South when the civil rights revolution took place fifty years ago. Someday a young person stopped by the police because of her skin color or accent will be President, and while they may forgive, they will never forget.

[Cheri]

Perfect comments. Both of you:)