Judge allows Arizona police to check immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants

Protesters should slogans during a protest against Arizona's immigration law on April 25, 2012 outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. / MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages

(AP) PHOENIX - A judge has ruled that police in Arizona can immediately start enforcing the most contentious section of the state's immigration law, marking the first time officers can carry out a requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, can question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The decision on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton is the latest milestone in a two-year legal battle over the requirement. It culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that upheld the provision on the grounds that it doesn't conflict with federal law.

Police in legal minefield on Ariz. immigration law
Fed judge: Ariz. police can check for papers
Ariz. Governor Jan Brewer stirs a new immigration policy controversy

Opponents who call the requirement the "show me your papers" provision responded to the Supreme Court decision by asking Bolton to block the requirement on different grounds, arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions of Latinos if it's enforced.

Other less controversial parts of the law have been in effect since July 2010, such as minor changes to the state's 2005 immigrant smuggling law and a ban on state and local government agencies from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law. But those provisions have gotten little, if any, use since they were put into effect.

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

Despite the decision that lets Arizona's questioning requirement take effect, some backers of the law questioned the level of cooperation they will get from federal immigration agents, who will be called to verify people's immigration status and be responsible for picking up illegal immigrants from local officers.

What the Supreme Court's immigration ruling means for Arizonans
For citizens and illegal immigrants alike, Arizona law hits hard

Federal immigration officers have said they will help, but only if doing so conforms to their priorities, including catching repeat violators and identifying and removing those who threaten public safety and national security.

If federal agents decline to pick up illegal immigrants, local officers in some cases will likely have to let them go unless they're suspected of committing a crime that would require them to be brought to jail.

To the supporters of Arizona's law, the questioning requirement was the most salient part of the statute, whose stated purpose was to make attrition through enforcement the state's immigration policy. Immigrant rights groups believe the requirement presented the most opportunities for civil rights abuses.

Among the opponents of the law was the Obama administration, which filed a challenge that led to the most controversial parts of the statute being put on hold.

Shortly before the law was to take effect in July 2010, Bolton prevented police from enforcing the questioning requirement and other parts of the statute, ruling the Obama administration would likely succeed in showing federal law trumps the state law.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, appealed the ruling, lost at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and took her case to the Supreme Court. The Obama administration failed to persuade the nation's highest court to strike down the questioning requirement on the argument that federal law trumps the state law.

A coalition of civil rights, religious and business groups then asked Bolton in July to prevent police from enforcing the questioning requirement. They offered different reasons in trying to put the brakes on the provision.

This time, the opponents sought to block the provision by arguing that Latinos in Arizona would face systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions if that section is enforced.

Lawyers for Brewer urged the judge to let the requirement go into effect. They argued that the law's opponents were merely speculating in their racial profiling claims, that 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.

Bolton denied the coalition's request on Sept. 5.

[Estoban]

Well looky here! Obama loses another expensive frivolous law suit. He won't uphold the constitution, but doesn't want anyone else to do his job for him. You lose, Obama.

[LosAngelesCA]

This is precedent. The US Supreme Court ruled in the New Haven Firefighters case that they could not sue based on the "anticipation" that there would be discrimination. That is pretty much what this judge said.

[borismcchesny]

Mexicans invade our country not out of survival but rather out of a false sense of entitlement. They aren't starving - in fact, Mexico has the second highest obesity rate in the world. They also have the same poverty rate as the US and the 13th largest GDP. They aren't breaking our laws because they have to. They are breaking our laws so they can by used Escalades with the money they save by working under the table. They must be stopped and large majority of Americans are relieved that our sovereignty was preserved by this court.

[walyern]

I know a legal fix to this issue. Since it is very subjective as to what illegal alien activity is (there is really no way to prove unless you actually see someone crossing the border illegally), than they only way law enforcement could check resident status is by checking those they have the authority to stop stop for any kind of objective law violation. At that point, Arizona state law enforcement should check such resident status of EVERYONE they stop. This is really the only constitutional way this could be done.
The truth is, being in this country without documentation is not a prosecutable crime (I know I am going to get kick back from that, so just look it up and you will see).
Lets say for the argument that it is though. If someone is stopped for some kind of objective law violation and that person fails to be able to produce the evidence proving his/her legal resident status, than that person must be treated legally (innocent until proven guilty). This alone makes it legally impossible for law enforcement to suspect someone of being here illegally, there is just nothing (other than witnessing someone actually crossing the border illegally) that can give probable cause.

[gmcken]

well, it's already gone to the supreme court, and they already said it is constitutional as long as it's done the way it's spelled out in the law

[shenboe]

Your argument does not even pass the laugh test let alone a legal test, even for the obstructionist D judges who will do almost anything to suck up to the illegal invaders expecting they will become future D voters if O gets his way.

[joelwisch2]

This time, the opponents sought to block the provision by arguing that Latinos in Arizona would face systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions if that section is enforced.
------------------------------------
Illegal aliens are not a race. Per the length of the detentions.. Federal Law establishes the length of that detention. In addition, when you find illegal aliens, you find a much higher crime rate. That is the basis, among others, for moving the criminals out. And yes.. it is a civil violation when you cross the border, but it is much more when you use a fake I.D., more when you enter into a contract, and more, more more. End it please.. detain and deport.

[AverageWhiteDude]

Why detain and deport? Let's save the cost of incarceration and free up our courts and just shoot and bury for $10 a Mexican.

[askagain]

AverageWhiteDude - As if that will happen. There is already a system in place for detaining and deporting illegal immigrants. That is as long as the Federal government follows it. Much of this resulted from the government refusing to enforce laws already on the books.

[collie61]

Why even have immigration laws if the current administration illegally keeps law enforcement from enforcing the laws? No one, I repeat, no one is above the law! If you want illegals to stay in this country, then change the laws, until then, enforce them.

[lesserof2evil]

No one is above the law unless you're a millionaire tax dodger.