联邦法官发布临时禁制令, 禁止Arizon州的部分反移民法实施

(美国之音2010年7月29日报导)一名美国联邦法官星期三就旨在遏制非法移民现象的亚利桑那州移民法作出裁决，在该法律即将付诸实施的前一天阻止了某些最具争议的条款。美国之音记者报导说，反对这项法律的人称这是一个胜利，但力挺该法的亚利桑那州长布鲁尔说，裁决不过是前进道路上的一个小小曲折而已。

美国联邦法官博尔顿发布临时禁令，禁止执行亚利桑那州新移民法中的部份条款。这些条款要求警察在执法过程中检查被他们逮捕或拦下的可疑非法留置者的身份。博尔顿还推迟了要求移民任何时候都要携带身份证明、以及禁止非法移民在公共场所找活儿干的条款。 除此以外，博尔顿法官还叫停了另外一个条款，该条款允许警察在没有拘捕令的情况下逮捕非法移民嫌疑人。博尔顿法官表示，她的临时禁止令可以使人们有机会在法庭上就这些极具争议性的问题展开辩论。

*亚利桑那州长布鲁尔可能上诉*

亚利桑那州长布鲁尔说，她将跟律师探讨可能提出上诉的问题。

她说：“我们将继续要求我们的立场得到尊重，亚利桑那州居民得到保护。我想提醒大家的是，联邦政府今天藉助法庭的帮助，他们又可以不履行自己的职责了。”

布鲁尔州长在四月份的时候签署了这一法律。她指出，亚利桑那州制定这一法律是因为联邦政府没有有效地执行联邦移民法，联邦政府的无所作为使犯罪率上升，增加了州里有关关押罪犯、医疗卫生以及教育等方面的财政负担。

奥巴马总统称这是一个“误入歧途”的法律。其他反对者表示这会导致警察根据嫌疑人的种族作出歧视性评判。

博尔顿法官保留了该法中防止雇用非法移民，以及允许亚利桑那州不至成为非法移民避难所等条款。博尔顿法官的裁决是针对美国司法部对该法律的起诉作出的。司法部指出，移民问题应属联邦政府职责范围，亚利桑那州的这项法律已经对美国和墨西哥外交关系构成影响。

*民间移民权益团体倍受鼓舞*

此外，包括美国公民自由联盟在内的一些民权团体也提出起诉，试图阻止这一法律付诸实施。他们指出，该法律对拉美族裔构成歧视。博尔顿的裁决虽没有涉及这个问题，但是她表示，要求警察查每一个被捕人的移民身份将给合法移民带来不公平的负担。

移民权益组织“边境行动网”对博尔顿法官禁止了他们所说的最具歧视性的条款表示大力称赞。

  Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- A federal judge has blocked one of the most controversial sections of a tough Arizona immigration law, granting a preliminary injunction Wednesday that prevents police from questioning people about their immigration status.

That provision of the law requires police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling, in response to a motion filed by the federal government, came with scant hours to go before the law goes into effect.

She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or "for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work," and a provision "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person" if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.

Seven lawsuits are seeking to block implementation of the law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April. The law, which also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them, is to go into effect Thursday.

CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the ruling reflects the government's argument that immigration enforcement should be dealt with at the federal level.

"Arizona may have good intentions, they may be trying to make up for where the us government has failed, but what the judge is saying is this is not the way to do it."

"I think this a case very much destined for the Supreme Court," as other states pass similar laws, Toobin said.

The Court of Appeals could take up the case in a matter of days, but the earliest the Supreme Court could look at it would be October because the high court is in summer recess.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she was disappointed by the ruling and that Arizona will file an expedited appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," she said in a statement. "I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government."

She emphasized that Wednesday's action was a temporary injunction, and that many other parts of the bill will go into effect as planned.

For instance, a ban on so-called sanctuary cities stands, as does making it a crime to pick up day laborers who are illegal immigrants. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for the hiring of illegal immigrants also goes into effect Thursday.

Another supporter of the law, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said that he and his crusade against illegal immigration will not be deterred.

" I am not really dissapointed about the judges decision," Arpaio said. "I know what my policies are and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing."

The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration reduction, was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling, said executive director Mark Krikorian.

"If the opponents hadn't turned it into this bogey man it would have been a useful, if modest, tool for the police," said Krikorian.

He argues the Arizona law wasn't intended to usurp federal authority.

"Arizona does not have its own immigration policy, even with the law. They are buttressing federal law," Krikorian said.

President Barack Obama, a critic of the Arizona law, was not expected to comment on the ruling Wednesday.

The Justice Department issued a statement saying the court "ruled correctly."

"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," the statement said. "States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework."

The Department of Homeland Security also weighed in, saying that the injunction "affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration laws."

Meanwhile, the president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thomas A. Saenz, said, "I think it's a great victory for the Constitution. I think all the provisions she has blocked from implementation were the most egregious."

Reaction was not limited to the United States.

Applause erupted at a protest outside the U.S. embassy in Mexico City when a speaker announced the judge's decision.

"I think it is a big victory, and it is the start of many more," said Sergio de Alba, president of the National Confederation of Workers and Farmers Organizations.

Minutes earlier, he had called on Mexicans to boycott products from the United States in protest.

Protesters attached signs to a gate in front of the embassy, with one slogan saying, "Boycott Against Arizona-Nazizona, home of hunting migrants and the Ku Klux Klan."

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling, which is illegal.

Supporters point out that the law prohibits racial profiling and people cannot be stopped and asked for proof of legal residence based solely on their looks.

In addition to the U.S. Justice Department, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy, the Christian Leaders League of United Latin American Citizens and other individuals or groups have asked the judge to halt the law, commonly known as SB 1070. Bolton heard arguments in the case last week from the Justice Department and the ACLU.

The separate hearings were held in Phoenix, where Bolton sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Bolton's courtroom was packed during the two July 22 hearings and protesters chanted outside throughout the afternoon.

Seven protesters were arrested on civil disobedience charges, according to the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The legal arguments revolved around a range of issues, including racial profiling, effective enforcement and possible harm to Arizona's citizens.

Attorneys from the Obama administration presented their case at the second hearing. The administration's challenge contends Arizona's law would usurp federal supremacy on immigration.

Brewer attended the hearing.

Arizona has argued that the federal government has not done a good job of securing the border.

"A law unenforced is no law at all," said state attorney John Bouma.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups argued earlier in the day that the controversial law amounts to racial profiling and will have a profound effect if it goes into effect.

"It treats people of color as suspects first, rather than citizens," attorney Karen Tumlin said after the hearing.

Bouma said the law would not treat people unfairly.

"These are hypothetical arguments. Local police are enforcing immigration laws all over the country," he told Bolton.

Those in favor of the law say SB 1070 is consistent with federal law. They say the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling and they are challenging the legal standing of many of the groups opposed.

They also contend opponents of the law have not been able to show there will be any harm from its implementation.

During the first hearing, Bolton said the law has a section allowing parts to still take effect even if other parts are struck down, according to CNN affiliate KNXV.

Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, and other lawyers and foes of SB 1070 repeated assertions that Arizona's law should be rejected.

"We are here to defend the rights of those who cannot stand up for themselves," said Terri Leon, CEO of the Friendly House, which supports the legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bolton heard a challenge to SB 1070 by an Arizona police officer the previous week.