|
Arizona Appeals Immigration Law Ruling
Arizona Thursday appealed a federal judge’s ruling that threw out some provisions of the state’s tough new immigration law.
|
|
24 Comments 
PHOENIX (July 29, 2010)--Arizona Thursday appealed a federal judge's order that put most of the state's immigration law on hold.
The state's appeal filed Thursday asks that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's preliminary injunction be lifted so that all of the law can take effect.
Lawyers for Gov. Jan Brewer also are asking that the appeal be considerer quickly.
Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law on Wednesday including a section requiring officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there's a reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally.
Brewer has said she'll take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
The provisions of the law that weren’t affected went into effect Thursday and dozens of opponents of Arizona's immigration law were arrested in Phoenix, after peacefully confronting riot police.
Hundreds of protesters began marching at dawn, gathering in front of the federal courthouse, where yesterday a judge delayed enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions.
At least eight protesters approached a police line and allowed themselves to be arrested, while about two dozen others sat in the middle of the street or refused to leave until police arrested them.
The demonstrators also marched to the office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, chanting, "we are here, we will not live in fear."
Arpaio, who has made a crackdown on illegal immigration one of his signature issues, vowed that his deputies would arrest the demonstrators and "put them in pink underwear.”
Latest Comments
The rebels in the civil war were not original in their reasoning either. They saw this in the Declaration of Independence “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, …evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”. They perceived aggression by liberals, and ‘rebelled’ against it. Therefore ‘Rebel’ doesn’t mean original thought. It means ‘opposition’ against a standing government. Find it in a dictionary. I notice you, yourself, haven’t espoused anything new, either. Rather than substantiate your rantings, you simply attack, for that is all you can do. There is no substance in what you espouse, other than a blind faith in one that cannot save you. The status, as is, is not what I preach. I preach the status of 100 years ago. Of 200 years ago. Those represent life under a constitution. BTW, in that dictionary you find, look up communism. The definition I gave below agrees nicely with it. JR
Reb...all I see is blah blah blah. You need meds. It's quite simple. Delusional...paranoid...you fit many descriptions of mental illness. Oh, but it MUST be me that's delusional right? Because you think otherwise, and Lord knows...what you think is the ONLY right thing. Go spew you rhetoric to someone else...I don't buy into what you are selling. Your child like barbs would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that you actually believe your own lies. Liberals are akin to communists...say it over and over again so we can all see the depth of your depravity. Keep calling Obama by his middle name, so we can all see your truly racist side ( as though anyone with a name that is middle eastern in origin is a terrorist ). " Reb" as in Rebel? That's a laugh...you wouldn't know a contrary ideal if it smacked you one. The status as is, is what you preach, not some rebel cause. Keep it up though, you are a great spokesman for the coalition to keep us on our knees. Try an original thought once.
OOPS Guess you could say it was worth repeating. (:-)) JR
