Immigration Protesters Rally as Ariz. Appeals

(CBS/ AP)  Updated at 11:50 p.m. ET

The showdown over Arizona's immigration law played out in court and on Phoenix's sun-splashed streets on Thursday, as the state sought to reinstate key parts of the measure and angry protesters chanted that they refused to "live in fear." Dozens were arrested.

A federal judge's decision a day earlier to block the strict law's most controversial elements didn't dampen the raging immigration debate.

The judge has been threatened. Protesters rallied in cities from Los Angeles to New York. The sheriff of the state's most populous county vowed to continue targeting illegal immigrants. Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they still want to push similar measures.

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, life continued as before, with officials sending back people who were captured while attempting to cross.

In Phoenix, hundreds of the law's opponents massed at a downtown jail, beating on the metal door and forcing sheriff's deputies to call for backup. Officers in riot gear opened the doors, waded out into the crowd and hauled off those who didn't move. They arrested at least 23 people, and more were detained elsewhere.

Activists focused their rage at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the 78-year-old ex-federal drug agent known for his immigration sweeps.

Outside his downtown office, marchers chanted "Sheriff Joe, we are here. We will not live in fear." One was dressed in a papier-mFache "Sheriff Joe" head and prison garb.

"I'm not going to be intimidated and stopped," he said. "If I have to go out and get in the car, I'll do it."

Sheriff's spokesman Brian Lee said deputies were able to start the sweep Thursday afternoon and arrested four people: two had warrants for suspended licenses, one had a suspended license, and one was illegally carrying a firearm. He did not know if any were illegal immigrants.

Activists, armed with video cameras and aided by others listening to police scanners, roamed the county's neighborhoods, saying they were ready to document any deputies harassing Hispanics.

In Tucson, between 50 and 100 people on both sides of the issue gathered at a street corner. About 200 protesters blocked a busy Los Angeles intersection, with police arrested about a dozen who were linked with plastic pipes and chains.

In New York, about 300 immigrant advocates rallied near the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan.

"It's one step closer for us, but I think the fight is still ahead," said Adelfa Lugo, a 56-year-old Mexican-born Brooklyn resident who joined the protest. "If we don't fight this in Arizona, this anti-immigrant feeling will spread across the country."

Since Wednesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails. Some were positive, but others were "from people venting and who have expressed their displeasure in a perverted way," said David Gonzales, the U.S. Marshal for Arizona.

Gonzales said his agents are taking some of the threats to Bolton seriously. He wouldn't say how many there were or whether any threats were coming from recognized hate groups. He refused to discuss any extra security measures, which U.S. marshals routinely provide federal judges.

The protests came as Gov. Jan Brewer appealed Bolton's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Read Court Filing (PDF)

"America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue," Brewer said in a statement. "We are a nation of laws and we believe they need to be enforced. If the federal government wants to be in charge of illegal immigration and they want no help from states, it then needs to do its job. Arizona would not be faced with this problem if the federal government honored its responsibilities."

Brewer, who hired lawyers to defend the law in court, hopes the court will act quickly, saying illegal immigration remains an ongoing crisis.

Arizona has more than 400,000 illegal immigrants, and its border with Mexico is awash with smugglers who funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S. The law's supporters say the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.

The Obama administration has decided to send National Guard troops to the border states to help federal agents with security.

Along the U.S.-Mexico border in punishing temperatures of more than 100 degrees Thursday, two immigrants climbed a fence and fled on foot, while a third threw rocks in the direction of Border Patrol agents. The officers arrested them. New deportees congregated around Nogales.

The Arizona National Guard officials say they hope to have 524 troops in place by the end of September. Troops are expected to arrive at the border in New Mexico and Texas by mid-August, and California officials have estimated an Oct. 1 deadline to have troops fully deployed there.

In Phoenix, demonstrators had promised nonviolent civil disobedience, and they gathered in front of the sheriff's office by the hundreds, blocking traffic and swarming around several cars caught in the protest.

Police moved in to try to allow the drivers to leave, as the crowd shouted, "We will not comply."

Over the next hour, the crowd surged, chanted, yelled and some protesters forced the arrests. They then moved on the to jail.

As Arpaio held a news conference, he got a telephone call, and he told the caller: "OK, we're going to divert our deputies down in front of the jail ... What you do, anybody that resists, you put 'em in our jail. We're going to lock 'em up."

Then he turned to reporters: "As I said, we're not going to allow our jails to be held hostage by these activists, so they're going to jail.

"And if we have to put 200 in there, that's where they're going," he said, adding that the sweeps would continue.

During the sweeps, deputies usually flood an area of a city - in some cases heavily Latino areas - to seek out traffic violators and arrest other alleged lawbreakers. Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants.

Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics. Arpaio says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause.

The Justice Department launched an investigation of his office nearly 17 months ago over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the department has declined to detail its investigation, Arpaio believes it centers on his sweeps.

The agency's civil rights attorneys and investigators were in Phoenix Thursday as part of their probe, DOJ spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said. She declined to comment on the status of the inquiry or answer any other questions.

In October 2009, when the federal government stripped Arpaio of his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests, he launched another sweep the next day.

Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling.

The elements of the new law that took effect on Thursday will likely aid Arpaio in his immigration efforts.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Bolton indicated the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.

But she allowed police to enforce the law's bans on blocking vehicle traffic when seeking or offering day-labor services and a revision to the smuggling ban that lets officers stop drivers if they suspect motorists have broken traffic laws.

Bolton also let officers enforce a new prohibition on driving or harboring illegal immigrants in furtherance of their illegal presence.

Opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law.

But a Republican lawmaker in Utah said the state will likely take up a similar law anyway when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011.

"The ruling ... should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer said.

After Ariz. Immigration Decision, What's Next?
Judge Hands Victory to AZ Immigration Law Foes
Read Judge Bolton's Decision
Arizona Immigration Decision: Early Reaction
Ruling Accepts Administration's Main Arguments
Tension Builds As Arizona Immigration Law Looms
Arizona Helped Deport 26,000 without New Law
Ariz. Gov. Seeks Dismissal of Immigration Suit
Neo-Nazi Group Patrolling U.S. Border
Is Political Rhetoric Hurting Ariz. Tourism?

[tsigili]

Let them protest.....many people are totally misguided liberal fools, who are unable to recognize that this country has, from the day it was founded, had quotas on legal immigration, just like every other country in the world.

That is necessary, to maintain a sound governmental system, that can meet the needs of people.

One of the reasons that most states are having dire financial problems, is all of the social benefits that the states are paying, for illegals, who do NOT pay for themselves. That is a simple fact, and there are statistics which clearly show that to be true. So, for all those government workers, being laid off, or cut back, you thank the illegals in this country, for a good sized piece of that!

[dadirt]

Should be a good place to pick up illegals. Make a big deal out of arresting stupid college kids whose minds are still in la la land. Wait until the have to go get a job and there is none because all the money collected bythe government is going to support illegal aliens, unemployed, and a large segment of our society that find it easier to live off the government. These airheads are future unemployed.

[buckn]

California has a $2362.00 per capita tax burden, one of the highest in the country.
California is flat broke and in the hole and begging for federal help with their budget. The governor has threatened to pay all state workers minimum wage.
Estiamted 6.8% of its population are illegal aliens who pay no taxes, but who sponge off of the state monies.
Coincidence? I think not. Just simple math.

[consciousnes]

This law is not about anti-imagration, it is about illegal imagration. When are people who are fighting this going to realize that the ability of just about anyone to walk accross our boarder with Mexic is just what the drug dealers want. So where is the money coming from to fight this? You guessed it, the drug dealers.

[Mortar_29]

by formrusmcsgt July 29, 2010 11:34 PM EDT
by Mortar_29 July 29, 2010 11:18 PM EDT

Afterall, the Federal government works for the States...not the other way around.
---
Considering that federal law trumps state law, I don't see your reasoning here, mort.....

Reply to this comment by curse914 July 29, 2010 11:37 PM EDT
haha, no, the Fed works for The People.

by Mortar_29 July 30, 2010 7:21 AM EDT
The reasoning is this...all Federal powers belong to the States. They gave these powers to the Federal government to do on their behalf. Those powers still belong to the states. How can I say this? If tomorrow, the States decided to have a vote and to push through an amendment giving them their power of coining money back, the Federal government would no longer be able to coin money! The States would have reclaimed their power.

You see, the Federal government was created and designed to work on behalf of the States, to accomplish some goals and responsibilities of theirs that they wanted collectively done. That is the ONLY reason for the Federal government.

Thus, the Federal government assuming powers never given to them by the States, means Washington is a rogue government, living outside of its legal constructs. And that means the States will have to do some things to reclaim the powers they already own.

The Federal government is a creation and a servant of the States. It is why the Senate was designed to answer to the States, by having the senators appointed by the State legislatures. And by controlling the senate, it also gave them veto power over SCOTUS nominees, any legislation before the senate, and treaties. It is why the president is elected by the Electoral College. So, the states could have a veto power over the popular elections and be able to make sure that the president that is elected meets their criteria. The only part of the US government that was meant to be "democratic" is the House.

This is the way this country was designed. It was designed by the States in order for them to continue doing what they do, and to have an entity there to do some of the collective things for them. All the while protecting state sovereignty and individual liberty.

We were never intended to have a democracy...and we dont want one! It is the worst form of government and ALWAYS leads to tyranny.

[Mortar_29]

Sorry sawlog that you never learned about the Constitution and how our government works while in school.

First off, you dont need to contact your congressmen and senators. The States can change the Constitution on their own without them even being involved. Look it up.

Second, all 50 states are sovereign states. They did not give up their sovereignty when they came into the union. The Founders were very clear on this when the wrote the Constitution. And the States were clear on this when they ratified the Constitution.

The States can change the Constitution to say ANYTHING they want it to say. And the Federal government MUST live by what it says! Currently, and really for the last about 90 years, the Federal government has gotten into the habit of ignoring the Constitution or trying to decide what it wants it to mean. It doesnt have that power!!

Only those who wrote the law get to decide what it means. If the Federal government wants the meaning changed so they have additional powers, then they can have the Congress vote on an amendment and then petition the States to ratify it. If the States say "no," then guess what? Washington cant do it!

The States can also decide to add powers or take powers away from Washington on their own. They can do this by coming together in a Constitutional Convention, coming up with amendments and then voting on them in their state legislatures. And guess what? There isnt a thing the Federal government can do about it except obey what the States come up with. That is, if they do more than what the states say in the Consitution, then they are a rogue government, outside of the law. And the States have the right to disband it.

You really need to sit down and study your Constitution, the FOunders and what they started here. It isnt a democracy. We dont want one of those!

Education over the last 30 years has led our people to be constitutionally ignorant. Thus, Washington can do what it wants because most people dont know any better.

That is beginning to change!

[thy-only_king]

Arizona Sheriff Not Relenting After Court Ruling

Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling. He has also raided 37 businesses in enforcing a state law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

"I'm not going to brag," Arpaio said. "Just look at the record. I'm doing what I feel is right for the people of Maricopa County."

[MEXISKIN1018]

WHY DOES EVERYONE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY WHEN YOU, THEY, ARE ALL ILLEGALS HERE!!??!! I THINK THE ONLY ONE'S WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ARE US NATIVE AMERICANS.!!! WE WERE HERE FIRST THIS IS OUR LAND NOT YOUR'S SO WHY YOU TRYING TO KICK ILLEGALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY?? YOUR ALL IN THE SAME BOAT AS THEM!! HOW DID YOUR ANCESTORS GET HERE???? THE GOOD THING THAT THESE MEXICANS, HISPANIC ARENT DOING IS KILLING OUR PEOPLE AND STEALING OUR LAND LIKE YOU PEOPLE. SO THINK BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND TRY TO JUDGE BECAUSE YOU ALL CAME IN THIS COUNTRY THE SAME.!!!

[Mortar_29]

Good luck with that. These people are breaking the law...they are criminals.

[6591Hou]

You having a problem with your caps lock?

Seriously though, there are written statutes and a national government and everything that entails and so on and so on. Your post ignores the very ugly truth that the various and sundry tribes did not win militarily.

[BigMykul]

Whereas I see that there would be a chance for profiling with the law, many of its tenets I do agree with. People that are illegally in the country should be removed. The federal law requires green cards for legal immigrants.
Not sure how the law on IDs in Arizona(or any other state), my state requires that adults have and carry picture ID and present same to a law-enforcement when requested. So I am not so sure what was wrong with the requiring of persons to have and carry identification.
As for the children of illegal aliens;
I have long advocated that the 14th admendment needs to be rewritten. Thusly stating that the children should not be given instant citizenship unless one or more parents were citizens, or in the process of obtaining citizenship. This would pertain to the 50 states, various territories of the US and for those citizens abroad.
I did not see the law a "show me your papers", as many have referenced to Nazi Germany. I don't feel that way when an officer requests my license and insurance card.
The reasonable suspicion and probable cause debate;
What's the difference?
Did the police officer(s) that entered OJ Simpsons estate (long after the crime) by climbing over the wall, have probable cause to do so, or a reasonable suspicion that there was danger to OJ?

Can anyone answer this? What is the difference.

If the cops pull me over and don't smell, see or hear anything that would cause them to search my vehicle, and they do so are they using probable cause, or reasonable suspicion?

[MEXISKIN1018]

first of who is illegal???? i see it as everyone who wasn't here before the native americans ARE ALL ILLEGAL!!!! what is you'r race and how did you ancestor's get here???? the same way the mexican illegals got here right!!! the only thing the hispanic, mexicans aint doing is stealing are land and killing our people!!! im native american and hispanic, i think that we NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHO STAYS AND WHO GOES. WE WERE HERE FIRST!! AND IF ANY ILLEGALS SHOULD BE REMOVED THEN I THINK YOU NEED TO BE TO, YOU CANT LOOK DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THEM BEING HERE ILLEGAL CAUSE YOUR IN THE SAME BOAT AND THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE THAT ISN'T NATIVE AMERICAN

[andacar]

MEXISKIN1018, if you really want to get technical about it, the archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the current Native Americans came over the ice bridge through Alaska and pushed out still earlier tribes. So how far back exactly do you want to go? Shall we say the mastodons were the true "Native Americans?" everybody is in some sense an immigrant. That is absolutely correct. I agree the law in Arizona leads to racial discrimination and profiling. No argument there. But do you simply propose to sort out the ?real? Americans through some kind of pogrom? An ethnic cleansing, perhaps? That worked great in Serbia, didn?t it? It seems to me the only way to fix this is to A: toughen our stance against illegal immigrants and B: clarify, ease, and liberalize our legal immigration laws. Nobody with any sense of history doubts the contributions of immigrants to America. They have contributed immensely to our troubled and now bitterly divided society. But you can?t fix one wrong with another one.

[curse914]

Jan and her real constituents (The Captains of Industry) are walking on thin ice in the name of political expedience. If we all decide that the best route is to go after the employer, the original intent of stirring up the hornets nest for votes may burn Jan's consorts on a pyre fueled by main street rage.

Burn baby, burn.

[formrusmcsgt]

Good night all.

Brian, mort, take care.