Immigration mattersArizona waits for court decision before changing immigration law
In response to the 28 July decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to block the more important provisions of the controversial Arizona immigration law, Governor Jan Brewer suggested that Arizona may “tweak” the law in order to address Bolton’s objections; Arizona legislatures say there is no point in rewriting the law while the state is appealing the judge’s decision; in any event, since Bolton blocked the provisions on grounds that they are preempted by federal authority over immigration matters, then the preemption issue will have to be settled by the courts before the legislature revisits the law
Arizona legislators are setting aside Governor Jan Brewer’s suggestion that lawmakers consider changing parts of the state’s controversial immigration law. Brewer on 30 July floated the idea of making “tweaks” to the law shortly after a federal judge blocked implementation of numerous provisions.
Legislative aides said yesterday (Tuesday) the idea has been shelved, at least temporarily, mainly because of the state’s pending appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Everyone agreed … that it would have been acting in haste to act at this point,” said Victor Riches, chief of staff for the House of Representatives’ Republican majority. There is still a possibility that lawmakers could take up the issue in the future but nothing is in the works now, Riches added.
AP reports that Brewer did not suggest specific changes to the law but expressed a willingness to consider changes in response to the preliminary injunction issued 28 July by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.
Legislative leaders voiced skepticism about Brewer’s idea from the get-go but had aides review it before concluding that no immediate action should be taken. “It’s in the middle of the appeal process. We need to see how at least what the 9th Circuit says,” said Greg Jernigan, general counsel to Senate Republicans.
Legislative aides said Brewer raised the possibility of considering changes to the immigration law during a brief special session held last week on an unrelated topic, but she ultimately didn’t include it in her special session call.
Jernigan noted that the appellate court has agreed to put the case on a fast track, scheduling a hearing on the case in early November.
Lawmakers could narrow the reach of a blocked provision barring release of arrested people pending checks of their immigration status, but it was not realistic to consider changing other provisions blocked by Bolton on grounds that they are preempted by federal authority over immigration matters, Jernigan said. The preemption issue will have to be settled by the courts, Jernigan added.
Besides the provision on immigration checks for arrested people, blocked provisions included a requirement that police check a person’s status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally. Bolton also blocked provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned immigrants from soliciting employment in public places.