Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

BEAUMONT-The Southeast Texas Tea Party says Americans must "stand with Arizona" to prevent our nation from turning into a Third World country. But a federal judge is siding against Arizona and blocked the state from forcing officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Raul Garcia is a professor at Lamar University. He teaches philosophy. Garcia opened up his classroom to discuss immigration reform.

"Instead of putting more effort into borders and keeping them out, we should figure out how to integrate them in and create more jobs," said one student.

"No other country in the world allows someone to come there indefinitely whether they are working or not," said another student. "It's about immigration. It's about illegal immigration."

"They get jobs that you're not willing to do," said a third student.

The discussion during the summer school class in Beaumont is driven by events in Arizona. A tough immigration reform bill is scheduled to become law Thursday but a judge has put on hold most of its controversial elements.

The measure getting the most attention would require officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

"Because immigration is a foreign policy issue, the state of Arizona has intervenedm," said Garcia. "It has gone against the federal government's responsibilities."

Garcia worries other states, including Texas might try to pass similar bills.

"The original intention was to engage in activities to eventually lead to racial profiling," said Garcia. "It reminded me of things in Nazi Germany."

Julie Melancon is the organizer for the Southeast Texas Tea Party.

"The law prohibits racial profiling," said Melancon. "For someone to use that as an excuse not to pass this law, is saying you don't trust law enforcement who are trained people to deal with any kind of racial issues."

The organization has held a number of rallies focusing on what the TEA Party calls high taxes and too much government spending. But tougher immigration laws are also the subject of discussion.

"We are a nation of law and we should abide by them and they should be enforced," said Melancon. "If not, what are there laws for?"

Laws that have provoked discussion and debate at rallies across the country and in Raul Garcia's classroom at Lamar University.

Statement from Southeast Texas Tea Party:

"The people of Arizona are attempting to defend their state from a massive invasion of illegal invaders that has brought crime, poverty and skyrocketing costs for welfare and other public services. The US Department of Justice is not helping, but working to make SB 1070 invalid. This is not just Arizona's fight; we are all in this together, and we must stand with Arizona if we are to keep all of America from turning into a third world country."

Associated Press - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

The White House had no comment on the ruling.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.

The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.

Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

Statements from various political players in Arizona came quickly. Arizona attorney general Terry Goddard said in a statement: "Jan Brewer played politics with immigration and she lost. Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state."

Goddard is a Democrat running for governor.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Republican, released a statement in which she said, "The courts may have ruled in favor of the federal government today, but the legal wrangling is just beginning. We have months and months of courtroom battles ahead of us, and Arizona’s taxpayers are being forced to fund both sides - that is money that should be going towards protecting our communities.

"There are no winners here - no matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure. The Administration needs to stop pursuing this distraction, and start working with us to get the border region under control and develop a national immigration strategy."

Meanwhile, one Arizona county has deported more than 26,000 illegal immigrants since 2007 without SB 1070, the law that will go into effect in a slightly different form after Judge Bolton's Wednesday ruling.