iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Arizona Immigration Law: Governor Brewer Considers Changing Law

PAUL DAVENPORT and JACQUES BILLEAUD   07/31/10 07:14 AM ET   AP

Jan Brewer

PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona's tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might take in the meantime.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed a ruling blocking its most controversial sections, said Friday she would consider changes to "tweak" the law to respond to the parts U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton faulted.

"Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that's what we would do," Brewer told The Associated Press. She said she's talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.

In her temporary injunction Wednesday, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.

Brewer has said she'll challenge the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing on Brewer's challenge in the first week of November. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of "significant importance" – the state's right to implement a law to address "the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration."

The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because "the only effect of the district court's injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time."

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor's behalf, were not immediately returned.

Democrats scoffed at Brewer's desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable.

"Why would we help her?" asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. "This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees."

House Speaker Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law.

Attorneys have begun reviewing the statute to identify possible changes, he said: "It's embryonic."

Sen. Russell Pearce, the law's chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law's critics scored a huge victory with the judge's decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren't blocked took effect Thursday. At least 70 people have been arrested.

The law's supporters reacted too, and a fund set up to help defend the measure added $75,000 Wednesday alone, giving the state more than $1.6 million to get Bolton's ruling overturned.

Meanwhile, hundreds of e-mails and phone calls – including some threats – have poured into the courthouse.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn't say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn't provide specifics of the threats they were examining. But a majority of the e-mails and phone calls to the judge's chambers and the court clerk's office are from people who want to grouse about her ruling, officials said.

"We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this," said David Gonzales, the U.S. marshal for Arizona. "But we want to look at the people who go over the line."

___

Associated Press writers Amanda Lee Myers in Phoenix and Brooke Donald in San Francisco contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona's tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might tak...
PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona's tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might tak...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9,618
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (109 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David01
texan Badges, I don't got no badges. I don't need
11:01 PM on 08/03/2010
The new "Birthday gift" web ad that Brewer put out is low class.
It's just despicable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ernie Evil
Smiting the false prophets
04:59 PM on 08/03/2010
Why would a Teabagger or an Intolerant Con always start their post with "I am not a Teabagger"? Are they ashamed to declare their affiliation in public? Seems like cowardice to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
01:13 PM on 08/02/2010
nothing2fear 17 minutes ago (12:51 PM)
25 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
No by "We" I mean citizens of this country with the same right to make and enforce laws as your country of Mexico or whatever Latin American nation you have come from.

I am hardly a Tea Bagger nor am I a Conservative or Liberal I am a citizen concerned with the welfare of my nation with the right to an opinion just as you have a right to your misguided opinion.
==============================================================
A Tbagger racists talking points.

My opinion is ,a concerned citizen excusing Russell Pearce John Tanton and white supremacists, who care you are a veterinarian,in the internet you can be everything you want to be ,included a waling entity with hood and sheets for attire!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
09:09 PM on 08/02/2010
"A Tbagger racists talking points."
Now when you insult you lose credibility.. not that you have a lot of that..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
03:08 AM on 08/03/2010
YOU!
Sniffing again,read the Supremacy Clause,fried the steak,customer is waiting!
04:05 AM on 08/03/2010
At least he got something,you have NONE!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Squigibo
Blocked by RWNJ's Everywhere
09:55 AM on 08/02/2010
The Teapartiers LOVE to wave The Constitution around. Then want to change it because it doesn't fit their agenda. They treat it like a holy email or something. It would take ratification on a National Level and that prolly has no chance in the world of making it.

"Defend the Constitution! (Or what we believe the constitution should be).

As soon as a federal judge, that is well versed in immigration law, finds the law unconstitutional, they get all worked up and want to amend the constitution. Based on a shoddy, ill written, racial profiling bill.

Give me a break.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Squigibo
Blocked by RWNJ's Everywhere
10:00 AM on 08/02/2010
Then send Death Threats to a Federal Judge. Yeah that's the way to win people to your side.
TeaParty = Flag Waving, Constitution Waving, disrespectful of Federal Judge and Process."

You can't have it both ways people.
photo
massjim
Dem? Repub? Is there a difference?
09:12 AM on 08/02/2010
Boy, will the Repubs use this situation in November. Pretty easy to imagine them publisizing a case or 2 of an illegal immigrant committing a murder or rape. They'll probably find someone that entered the country illegally AFTER July 31, when the AZ law would have gone into effect if not blocked. Between this and the Rangel ethics charge, say goodnight Dems.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chudye
04:57 PM on 08/03/2010
The other shoe hasn't dropped yet folks. Bill K. is right (GOP needs to leave this and fast)! Does anyone really think that Rangel or Watters for that matter will go done without taking others with them. Washington has lots of secrets...secrets that neither the right nor the left want told.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Emma2011
07:59 AM on 08/02/2010
"On the subject of immigration, Obama has shown very little backbone. The administration still doesn’t seem to believe it needs the Latin@ vote. The administration doesn’t appear to believe that Latin@s will stay home in significant numbers this fall or in 2012 given the complete failure of Democrats to move any immigration reform whatsoever despite holding the White House and both houses of Congress with wide majorities."
(David Bennion, FDL Aug 1)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chudye
05:25 PM on 08/03/2010
There are no wide majorities on the left, in case you didn't notice...that is why the minority has had some success in stalling efforts of the majority! Maybe you need to look up the numbers on the two sides. And Obama has a better record than GW with respect to immigration enforcement! That he can't effect real immigration reform is more the fault of the House and Senate than it is of the President. After all, it is not the President that passes laws; that's for the legislative branch! You know, there's the executive branch (pres), the legislative branch (that would be congress), and the judicial branch (courts). You did study the Constitution, didn't you? Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Vlad Tepes
05:04 AM on 08/02/2010
Bunch of bs. Checking driver licenses of occupants inside a vehicle during a traffic stop is common sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Squigibo
Blocked by RWNJ's Everywhere
09:50 AM on 08/02/2010
Drivers licenses won't work. Anybody can have a Drivers License. A Drivers License is not a passport, or Visa. It's a license to drive, which is regulated by the State and not Federal. Immigration is a FEDERAL arena. The Identification has to be issued by a Federal Process, which means EVERY American has to have a Federally Approved Identification. To do that, and the enforcement of such would be the basis for fascism.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Vlad Tepes
11:51 AM on 08/02/2010
What we have know is anarchy
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Vlad Tepes
11:51 AM on 08/02/2010
now
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
11:50 AM on 08/02/2010
Common senses isn't in the Constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Vlad Tepes
11:52 AM on 08/02/2010
Your goal is to break the law
photo
FireDog
Peace lovin, Tree huggin, Progressive Lib
04:42 AM on 08/02/2010
Gee Brewer sure brings out our passions doesn't she.

Me I just want to slap some sense into her.
06:36 PM on 08/01/2010
@itschuck2c

Fourteenth Amendment
English-only legislation violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states
that laws cannot discriminate against certain groups based on specific
characteristics, such as race, gender, or national origin. In Hernandez v. New York,
the Supreme Court held that language proficiency could be viewed as one of these
classifications. Also, Asian American Business Group v. Pomona, equated the use of
foreign languages as an expression of national origin. Such laws are dangerous
because they are based on a rejection of unpopular national origin, motivated by a
dislike of foreigners, and relegate limited-English proficiency groups to second-class
citizenship.
The Fourteenth Amendment, under the due process clause, also ensures that every
person has the opportunity to be heard and tried before any deprivation of life,
liberty or property. The lack of any bilingual support for non-English speaking
persons in the courts precludes them from utilizing the judicial system and to assert
their rights and obtain fair hearings
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
08:02 PM on 08/01/2010
On April 24, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, rejected a legal challenge to Alabama's Official ENGLISH LAW, which was a tremendous victory for Official English. In Sandoval v. Alexander 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (U.S., Apr 24, 2001) (NO. 99-1908), Sandoval claimed that because it was a recipient of federal financial assistance, the Alabama Department of Public Safety was subject to Title VI of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. Since Section 601 of Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, Sandoval brought a CLASS ACTION suit to enjoin the department from administering state driver's license examinations only in English.

Hernandez was jury selection and since the prosecutor offered an explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue whether Hernandez made a prima facie showing of discrimination is moot.
Thou the decision does not imply that exclusion of bilinguals from jury service is wise, or even constitutional in all cases. It may be, for certain ethnic groups and in some communities, that proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, could be treated as a surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis.
08:13 PM on 08/01/2010
"CLASS ACTION suit to enjoin the department from administering state driver's license examinations only in English"

Are you always stoo-pid like that or only in Sundays.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
05:07 PM on 08/01/2010
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic 3 hours ago (2:15 PM)
553 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
itschuck2c 19 minutes ago (1:52 PM)
41 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Did I mention united states??
=============================================
You failed to understand the Supremacy Clause,states rights are limited by the Constitution
unless Congress amend the Constitution states right are a fallacy,only Constitutional
revisionists,white supremacists and others claim states right,THERE ARE NONE!

This is a Federal Government!

So you are saying the states have no rights??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
06:06 PM on 08/01/2010
Bica ,well point where are those right in the Constitution ,are you Palin?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
08:12 PM on 08/01/2010
New York v. United States, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.
nothing2fear
They only call it Class War when we fight back.
11:51 AM on 08/02/2010
If you liked your people (we all know you are not loyal to this country) then you would want to put an end to this sort of thing.

Illegal Immigrant who died trying to cross
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29border.html?_r=1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
03:08 PM on 08/01/2010
itschuck2c 19 minutes ago (2:43 PM)
41 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Horne v. Flores, No. 08-289, and 08-294
Silva v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita
Anderson v. Utah
Sandoval v. Alexander
========================================================
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from an Arizona Supreme Court decision declaring an "English-only" law unconstitutional. Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a ruling in which the Arizona court had struck down an Arizona law designating English as the state’s official language and requiring state and local governments in Arizona to conduct business only in English. The effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s action was to let stand the state supreme court’s decision that the "English-only" law was unconstitutional.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
05:05 PM on 08/01/2010
Ok and how does that case have anything to do with the cases I cited?? Rather than comment on the cases I provided you again dodge the subject (case I cited) for one of your own choosing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
06:03 PM on 08/01/2010
“"The court also held that the English-only amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[n]o state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The court recognized that the English-only amendment impinged upon the right to petition for redress of grievances, a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the First Amendment, as well as on a corollary right of all citizens to participate equally in the political process. Since the English-only amendment impinged upon the fundamental right to petition the government for redress of grievances, it was subject to a "strict scrutiny" analysis, the court reasoned. Under this analysis, the defendants had the burden of establishing the amendment’s constitutionality by demonstrating that it was drawn with narrow specificity to meet a "compelling state interest." Concluding that the defendants did not meet this burden, the court found the amendment to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection"

You are argumentative pathetic the Supreme Court ruled!”
nothing2fear
They only call it Class War when we fight back.
01:22 PM on 08/02/2010
ObamAtomic You really need to get some different cut and past propaganda your stuff is old and boring. You sound like a broken record that skips past thought and repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats repeats
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
01:30 PM on 08/02/2010
Your "education" is amazing you are proving you lack arguments,keep up.

You can't refuted,you lack arguments,I know isn't easy for you to defend white supremacists.

Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-white supremacists.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
02:53 PM on 08/01/2010
itschuck2c 29 minutes ago (2:21 PM)
41 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Has the federal govt acted in this field..no..the federal govt has no official language..one of the supremacy clause tests
=================================================
The federal government acted in the field,Congress passed a Civil Right Act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
05:06 PM on 08/01/2010
Scuze me..I dont think there is mention of a language in the civil rights act..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
06:02 PM on 08/01/2010
There not have to be mentioned!

Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.

Shut_Shut!
06:35 PM on 08/01/2010
Delusional!
Are you really so uneducated about America or you are playing dumb?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
02:50 PM on 08/01/2010
crosshatchaz 4 minutes ago (2:43 PM)
192 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
You are wasting your time. His brain cannot handle that much input.
=============================================================
I give up long ago,the man is one those trollies,obfuscated and lacking curiosity.
02:43 PM on 08/01/2010
$1,000,000,000,000 - 1 trillion dollars

That's how much money the US treasury will net if all 20 millions illegal immigrants were to each pay $50,000 to become legal.
First, they can afford it even if they have to make monthly payments
Second, we all know how valuable something is once you have paid through the nose for it!
Third, extend the period (of going from green card) to citizenship from 5 years to 20 years and charge another $10,000 per person. That's another 200 billion dollars

Then we use the 1.2 trillion dollars to police and seal the border
photo
ghostrider57
Unable to find reality.sys Universe halted
03:55 PM on 08/01/2010
Good thing your family didn't have to do that, you'd still be an illegal alien. Not to mention that all of us actually are illegal aliens. I don't remember anything in my US history that stated native Americans gave all of our ancestors a pass for stealing their country.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
02:15 PM on 08/01/2010
itschuck2c 19 minutes ago (1:52 PM)
41 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Did I mention united states??
=============================================
You failed to understand the Supremacy Clause,states rights are limited by the Constitution
unless Congress amend the Constitution states right are a fallacy,only Constitutional
revisionists,white supremacists and others claim states right,THERE ARE NONE!

This is a Federal Government!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
itschuck2c
02:17 PM on 08/01/2010
You really need to understand the supremacy clause..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
02:26 PM on 08/01/2010
You need to understand it and put into your head, any law by an state can't conflict with a federal law,regardless,English isn't the official language in America,
how Arizona can declare official.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, EVERYONE MUST FOLLOW THE FEDERAL LAW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
02:31 PM on 08/01/2010
Really what happened to the racist unconstitutional Arizona's bill.

You really need to stop and understand English,your talking points are sillies, same
as you used to defend the Arizona's bill.