A Look at the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law and Judge Susan Bolton

Among yesterday's protestors against Arizona's law were two people waving a Mexican flag and a flag sporting the image of Che Guevara. El Che was a Communist revolutionary responsible for the deaths of thousands. Do these modern revolutionaries really think they win points in the US by supporting two anti-American ideals claiming citizenship of Mexico or idealizing Che Guevara?

First off, District Court Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on Arizona's illegal immigration law (SB-1070) is not a disaster against the new law, nor is it an indication of another out-of-touch activist judge. Just as supporters of SB-1070 have decried liberals for not even reading the law, we mush also decry the knee jerk reaction against Judge Bolton by those who didn't actually read her ruling.

The Arizona law remains largely intact. The judge's ruling barred only two sections and two subsections, dealing with certain enforcement issues. Her ruling also indicated that such sections could indeed be tightened up a bit in order to pass constitutional muster.

One major problem with the new law, that the judge pointed out, indicated a section of the code could be interpreted so that every person arrested by police could be detained in jail until proof of citizenship was established. This is certainly an unreasonable violation of civil rights, as such a possible interpretation of the law could strand a US citizen in jail until the federal government got around to issuing a verification of citizenship. (Considering the efficiency of the federal government, would you want to sit in jail until you were proved to be a citizen?)

While I'm not at particular risk from this section in the law, since I am not hispanic nor am I likely to be arrested, the judge's concern is a valid one. Keep in mind, while that provision of the law was barred, it certainly doesn't kill the entire bill, nor does it bar future amendment with clearer language.

In a different section, the judge also delayed the implementation that would allow police authority to arrest illegal aliens without a warrant. The section of the law opens the possibility that police officers might wrongly arrest illegal aliens. This is, of course, at the heart of the concern of the protesters, those who are convinced that the Arizona law embodies racial profiling. Yet, the judge hinted that with narrowed language, this section might also pass constitutional muster.

On a different vein, the judge upheld the law's anti-sanctuary statutes, which is bad news for sanctuary cities such as LA or San Francisco, and bad news as well for the liberal theory behind sanctuary cities. Apparently, sanctuary cities really are at odds with federal law while the anti-sanctuary statutes uphold federal law.

The judge also upheld that part of the law brought into question by the Department of Justice's federal lawsuit against the Arizona law based on federal supremacy. Rather than upholding the federal point of view, Judge Bolton has upheld the state's point of view and has made a more difficult task for the Department of Justice to prove its case all the way up to the Supreme Court level.

Instead of reactionary hysteria on both sides of the ideological equation, I suggest the Arizona lawmakers get to work (after the summer recess) and fix the two sections Judge Bolton barred. The Arizona law against illegals, and those upcoming laws in other states, may yet be salvaged.