Ariz. Gov. Considers Changing Immigration Law

The fight over Arizona's immigration law showed no signs of letting up Friday as the federal judge who blunted its force faced threats and the Republican governor who signed it considered changes to address any faults.

(Note: Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, is scheduled to appear on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.)

In the days since U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put the most controversial parts of the law on hold, hundreds of e-mails and phone calls - including some threats - have poured into the courthouse.

Seventy people have been arrested in demonstrations.

And a fund set up to help defend the new law added $75,000 Wednesday alone, giving the state more than $1.6 million to get Bolton's ruling overturned.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed the ruling, has vowed not to back down, saying she'll challenge Bolton's decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing in the first week of November on Arizona's challenge. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

More on Ariz. Immigration

Immigration Law Protesters Interrupt Mets Game
In All, 71 Cuffed in Ariz. Immigration Protests
US Agency May Skirt Congress on Immigration
Ariz. Sheriff Continues Sweeps After Ruling
Immigration Protesters Rally as Ariz. Appeals
Ariz. Illegal Immigration Law Judge Threatened
After Arizona Immigration Decision, What's Next?

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued in their appeal that it involves an issue of "significant importance" - the state's right to implement a law to address "the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration."

The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because "the only effect of the district court's injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time."

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor's behalf, were not immediately returned.

Brewer said earlier Friday that she'd consider changes to "tweak" the law to respond to the parts Bolton faulted.

"Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that's what we would do," Brewer told The Associated Press. She said she's talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.

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.

Democrats scoffed at Brewer's desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable.

"Why would we help her?" asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. "This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees," Sinema said.

House Speaker Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law.

Attorneys have begun reviewing the law to identify possible changes, he said: "It's embryonic."

Sen. Russell Pearce, the law's chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law's critics scored a huge victory with the decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren't blocked took effect Thursday.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn't say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn't provide specifics of the threats they were examining, but said a majority of the e-mails and phone calls to the judge's chambers and the court clerk's office are from people who want to grouse about her ruling, officials said.

"We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this," said David Gonzales, the U.S. Marshal for Arizona. "But we want to look at the people who go over the line."

[RobAla]

What is not being said in this article, is that if this administration had been doing it's legal job to secure the borders and enforce federal immigration law, there would have been no need for Arizona to pass any kind of immigration law. I am not a member of any political party. I was ticked at President bush for not making any move to secure the border until just prior to going out of office. I am even more angry at President Obama for:
1) stopping the work President began, by building the border fence
2) refusing to enforce federal immigration law
3) attacking Arizona Americans for attempting to protect themselves from an invasion of illegal immigrants

He could have taken all of this off the table by simply allowing the fence to be built and enforcing federal immigration law.

President Obama's actions have done nothing but divide our nation, since coming into office. His focus on implementing an extremist left wing agenda is wrong. He is wrong on the illegal immigration issue. He was wrong in forcing a health care bill that the majority of Americans didn't (and still do not) want. He is wrong to expand the federal government at the expense of businesses and American taxpayers, instead of creating an environment where businesses can begin to hire again. He is wrong to push the expiration of the President Bush tax cuts, which would redirect money from the economy and into Washington DC. I have never seen a President so wrong on so many issues.

[savory26]

So if the country wasn't Mexico but rather Afganistan or Yemen, would you all be so quick and happy to let the illegals in? I think there's a dangerous and elitist attitude amongst the liberals that the Mexican's are a kind, polite, quiet, hard-working bunch who we need to protect and take care of. It's sort of the 21st century version of "The Noble Savage"...To myself and my family who immigrated from Eastern Europe, illegal is illegal. No one group is above the law.

[thy-only_king]

On the floor of the House last night there's this big, giant first responders bill that the Democrats have been waffling on for three and a half years or two years, three and a half years, whatever it is, and they're trying to piggyback an immigration reform amendment, I think, something to do with immigration to a first responders bill because they're figuring nobody is going to oppose a first responders bill.

[shierp]

I think that it is very commendable that the governor wants to review this bill. The review based on the information gained in the bill's first legal challenge should show any legal faults. If the legislature repairs these, the bill will be stronger and will be more likely upheld in ther court proceedings. Perhaps making some of them unnecessary.
Of course the biggest help would be for the fed to do their job in the first place.

[askagain]

shierp - You are correct. The easiest solution would be for the Federal government to simply do its job. We need to look for a hardliner on enforcing the immigration laws for our next president. The only real way to influence what happens with immigration is through our votes.

[shierp]

You know, variablespanner, you sit there every day and type that this can never be, or that can never be. Any effort to get anything done you attack and search up any legality you think might support your view. In the meantime, nothing happens. If your party, the democrats, are for something, you do the opposite even when you can't find any reason no matter how obscure to support what they are doing. I think it is just sad that you have absolutely no capability of independent thought. A total robot. Unless you are on a payroll of someone.

[formrusmcsgt]

by jayrh July 31, 2010 5:03 PM EDT
Unless Obama can pack the court, the bill should be upheld..
---
Yeah.

The SCOTUS justices will be eager to sign off on discrimination and subversion of the Constitution alright.....

Sheesh.

[jayrh]

Ah, someone who hasn't read the bill... How do you discriminate when the bill says that race can't be used to determine whether a person might be here illegally? Maybe you can tell me how the constitution would be subverted? I can't see it...

The judge in this case had to twist facts and logic to side with the Justice Dept... Her opinion didn't make sense!

[Surroundedbystupidity]

She's willing to change the law because she knows it won't pass Constitutional muster. I don't think it will no matter what changes are made because technically, Arizona doesn't have a border with Mexico, the United States does. And if various states pass various versions of their own immigration laws, the law will be slightly different from state to state. What's leagal in one state might be illegal in another.
It's clearly a Federal issue and must be addresed at the Federal level. The question then becomes how can we get the Feds to do it? Bush tried to address it and got shot down, but he was after immigration "reform", and Obama seems to be leaning that way too, though we haven't heard anything specific yet. Why do we even need reform? We already have laws, why not enforce them? - 2 things jump out right away: Votes and Money; Politicians actively pushing for enforcement risk losing the Hispanic vote. And if enforcement is ramped up by the Feds to where it needs to be, a huge increase in manpower will be needed. How is that going to paid for? We need to apply pressure to our U.S. Senators and Representatives to stop tip-toeing around and come up with a way to fund enforcement.

[formrusmcsgt]

I go along with most of your points, but deportation ALONE would cost over a half trillion dollars, according to ICE.

Tack on top a bazillion extra agents and where's the dough for that?

[jayrh]

Actually, most provisions in the bill have already been litigated... This judge pretty much ignored precedent in deciding the case. That's ok if something was wrong with that precedent such as constitutional issues. This wasn't true here however... Her opinion didn't really make much sense... Unless Obama can pack the court, the bill should be upheld..

That being said, it should be addressed at the Federal level. Obama doesn't want to do it without amnesty and the votes that he perceives that will bring though... It will be interesting after November when he doesn't have the big majorities in congress though... Will he finally try to govern from the center and compromise on issues such as this? At this point, he doesn't have much support except for his base. Would such a move drive them away as well?

[Surroundedbystupidity]

I absolutely agree that illegal immigration must be addressed, but Arizona's law isn't the answer. This "crisis" didn't happen overnight and a state law won't fix it overnight. Arizona (and other states) have had years and years to take steps to stop this flood of illegals and have done nothing. Arizona has 7 U.S. Representatives and 2 well known Senators. The State of Arizona should have been pressuring its U.S. Congressional delegation to call loudly for Federal enforcement all along. Interesting that we haven't heard a peep from John McCain or Jon Kyl.

[formrusmcsgt]

Mccain has been sliding further to the right as his fringe opponent has forced him to....

Anything to win.

[pensacola8-2009]

The biggest difference between Mexico and the USA is that the USA has a credit line that permits it to borrow and stave away organized crime. Mexico has refused to borrow and now has an active war against organized crime on its' hands, just like the USA saw in the 1930's during the Great Depression when the USA was constrained with the gold standard.

In a few short years, Mexico will be the victor in their war and have a reviving economy. Any law that Arizona passes will fade into history and leave a legacy of contempt. Mexico will remember who their friends and enemies were during these times. Mexican citizens are a closely woven society who share joy and pain together on a national scale.

How many of you will be able to prove you were their friends? How many of you are able to speak Spanish? How many of you visit Mexico? How many of you stop and converse with a Mexican military person and congratulate them for their valiant courage to purge organized crime from their country? Any coward or immature patriot of this country can condemn a Mexican when they are down and exhibit no belief in their ability to succeed, but such treatment would be most unpleasant if it was ever returned back to us. It would make a mountain of regret that would confront us for decades if we went through with this over-zealous purist attitudes guiding our immigration legislation.

I implore Arizona to show some personal strength and turn a bad situation into a good one. It has been done in other states.

[formrusmcsgt]

Special Session, eh?

Law re-write, eh?

Sure doesn't sound like someone with confidence in their appeal to me....

More like "We've made our racket, lathered up the base and I've galvanized the 'anti-immigrant' vote, now let's do a version that's actually enforceable.

[1renegade]

When a court has a nickname of "9th Circus Court" I wouldn't have much faith in it either,

[us_1776]

As I said before, the immigration reform issue is not a cut and dry issue.


The unchecked immigration problems are the result of failures of Arizona politicians who for decades turned a blind eye while thousands of Arizona businesses openly hired illegal immigrants to help build out the state.

And many of these businesses told the immigrants that everything was ok and that they would help them obtain citizenship. But all these businesses did was exploit the immigrants as a cheap source of labor and they never did help them obtain citizenship.

And every day for decades these immigrants were out in the open, on construction projects, landscaping, in agriculture, in food service, in hotels and restaurants. And all the while Arizona politicians turned a blind eye failing to do anything to the employers who were openly hiring these immigrants.

Now fast forward thirty years and you have legal American citizens, born and raised in the U.S., the children of these first immigrants, protesting the Arizona law. They do not want to see their parents or other relatives deported after decades of living in Arizona and helping to build the state.

And still these Arizona politicians do nothing to the employers who hire the immigrants. Why? Because the whole issue is political grandstanding in an election year.






.

[ur_shadow]

You hit the nail on the head as to the real root of the problem: our long-standing addiction to cheap labor. Well said.

If the employers along with the state and federal governments really cared they would have documented the workers and offered them paths to citizenship. They would then have been protected under the law - even paid much more than the less than minimal wage they likely get now.

[jayrh]

You know, you should really read the Arizona bill before you comment. The bill does attempt to crack down on employers...

It seems like your whole argument is that since the law hasn't been enforced by some, it should never be enforced...

People that come here illegally, know that they've broken our laws and may not be able to stay. They should be grateful that they've had a chance to earn what extra money that they have. Not expect that we owe them something...