S.B. 1070: No To A Police State
America is not a police state, neither is Arizona despite the eagerness of its legislature, its governor and the majority of the hysteric public opinion
America is not a police state, neither is Arizona despite the eagerness of its legislature, its governor and the majority of the hysteric public opinion.
An order for injunctive relief, although preliminary, reaffirms that the very basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution will remain safeguarded against abuse whether in the guise of statute or of law enforcement.
Arizona officers will be prevented from checking a person's immigration status or make a warrantless arrest based on mere conjectures or so called "reasonable suspicion".
Arizona cannot burden its citizens or alien residents to carry identity documents or registration papers.
Arizona may not create new crimes in order to regulate immigration independently from the federal government.
In sum, the federal court decided that blocking the most pernicious evils of the S.B. 1070 is in the public interest, preventing irreparable harm to our civil liberties.
"Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime", "federal law contains no criminal sanction for working without authorization," as stated in its restraining order by the federal court.
Referring to the "attrition through enforcement" legislative intent of the S.B. 1070, Judge Susan Bolton refused to "enjoin a purpose." American in spirit and gracious, Judge Bolton stated, "The Arizona Legislature is free to express its viewpoint and intentions as it wishes," after all "it had no operative function".
Solidly based on precedent, another stalwart of our judicial system, Judge Bolton frequently quoted Hines v. Davidowits (1941) where the Supreme Court found that imposing "substantial burdens on lawful immigrants…frustrates the concern of Congress for nationally-uniform rules governing the treatment of aliens…-rules designed to ensure 'our traditional policy of not treating aliens as a thing apart.'"
The Supreme Court in Hines observed that regulating immigration by the U.S. Congress and not any individual state was to be done "in such a way to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens…and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practice and police surveillance."
To the 18 other states considering similar anti-immigrant legislation, this preliminary injunctive relief, shows that to enforce such "preempted laws" is not in the public interest for Arizona or the rest of the United States.