Federal Injunction Blocks Most of the Nasty Bits in SB 1070

Last night, while chatting with some friends, I predicted that a federal injunction would block SB 1070 some time today. I should’ve gotten a pool going — maybe I could’ve won some big bucks?

This morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted a partial injunction against SB 1070, preventing most of the nastier parts of SB 1070 from going into effect tomorrow. Saying that the federal government is likely to be able to demonstrate that SB 1070 pre-empts existing federal immigration laws, Bolton blocked the following provisions in her ruling:

  • state and local police officers will be able to determine immigration status of detained suspects based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is an illegal immigrant.
  • legal immigrants or resident aliens will be charged with a crime under state laws for violating federal laws that they have their immigration documents on their person at all times.
  • illegal immigrants can be charged with a state crime for applying for, or performing, work.
  • stateand local police officers may make a warrantless arrest of any person suspected of a crime that would result in deportation of that person.

As a resident alien, I am particularly delighted that I won’t be charged with a state crime if I am found without my passport tomorrow. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to figure out if I even really oppose the neutered version of SB 1070 that will go into effect, which are:

  • motor vehicles picking up day labourers — legally or illegally in this country — cannot block or impede the normal flow of traffic.
  • people knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant in their vehicle can be charged with smuggling, if it can be shown they are doing so for profit.
  • employers face charges if they knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.

Can I really say I’m against charging a vehicle with a traffic violation for blocking traffic? Not really, no — blocking traffic shouldn’t be allowable under any circumstance. How about charging employers with a crime for knowingly employing an illegal immigrant? Employers should not be allowed to hire illegal immigrants, and thereby skirt existing labour laws and avoid paying a fair wage. Furthemore, an existing Arizona state law requires that all employers use the federal government’s E-Verify system. SB1070, in essence, duplicates that state law, which has been on the books for two years.

As for the smuggling stuff — this part always sounded a little toothless to me. I mean, how would a court of law demonstrate that anyone, other than the members of a human trafficking ring who received payment from someone to illegally cross the border, knows a passenger’s immigration status? I always doubted that the average Joe, who drives his friend to the neighbourhood Boston Market, could be charged with smuggling if his friend turned out to be undocumented.

Now, I understand that the federal injunction is temporary, and that it’s possible (if unlikely) that the courts will allow SB 1070 to  come into effect in its full form. And yes, I’m pissed that SB 1070 ever passed in Arizona in the first place.

But, I also think that there’s room here for tempering some of our outrage. SB 1070 is a terrible law, but there are some elements in the bill that need to be reasonably considered. To me, what sometimes gets lost in the anti-SB 1070 side of the argument is the fact that illegal immigrants are illegally in the country.

Illegal immigrants should not be harassed or mistreated (as Barry Wong suggested by cutting their utilities) or racially profiled or warrantlessly detained, but neither do they have a right to work in this country without paying income taxes. They do not have a right to federally-subsidized healthcare and education. They do not have the right to cross this country’s borders without abiding by this country’s immigration laws. Activists against SB 1070 sometimes seem to lose sight of this in their zeal to rail against the law.

So, I really can’t say that I’m terribly pissed off about the parts of SB 1070 that will become law tomorrow. I still have questions as to whether or not these portions still preempt federal law, but in spirit, I don’t find them particularly noxious. In fact, I’m remarkably optimistic that we’re well on our way to finding a good compromise on this whole matter. Perhaps we might even build some political momentum behind wholesale immigration reform.

And maybe even with a minimum of rioting?

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!