|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
SB 1070 was a dud from its inception
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP Jul 30, 2010 02:47pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Commentary |
| Author | Robert Robb |
| Media | Newspaper - Arizona Republic (Phoenix) |
| News Date | Friday, July 30, 2010 08:45:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The injunction by Judge Susan Bolton against major portions of Senate Bill 1070 brought into sharp relief a reality too long ignored by its proponents: The bill was poorly conceived and even more poorly drafted.
The principal objective of the legislation was to get local law enforcement more involved in enforcing immigration laws. This is something the public clearly wants.
There was a way to bring this about that didn't raise significant constitutional issues. Local police have authority to enforce federal laws. The Legislature could have simply instructed local police departments to stop turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and include violations of federal immigration laws in the wide range of infractions they enforce. Immigration violators would then be turned over to federal authorities to be processed in the federal system.
After Bolton's injunctive relief, that is in essence what remains of SB 1070.
Instead, state legislators sought to set up separate state immigration crimes and a separate state system of punishment. Instead of turning over immigration violators to federal officials, they could be charged, prosecuted and incarcerated in the state system.
The fact that SB 1070's prime architect, state Sen. Russell Pearce, was repeating that SB 1070 merely enforced federal law, which is manifestly false, in reaction to Bolton's injunction is revealing. I don't think Pearce is consciously lying. I don't think he really knew what he was doing. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
