United States of America v. Arizona / Judge Bolton's ruling was justified

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Position: Judge Bolton's ruling was justified

This position addresses the topic United States of America v. Arizona.


For this position


Quotes-start.png "Instead of turning over immigration violators to federal officials, they could be charged, prosecuted and incarcerated in the state system. This was a dumb idea on two fronts. First, it clearly infringed on federal prerogatives regarding the regulation of immigration and invited the legal challenge Bolton has preliminarily upheld. But more importantly, why should state taxpayers pick up the tab for prosecuting and incarcerating illegal immigrants?" Quotes-end.png
From SB 1070 was a dud from its inception, by Robert Robb (The Arizona Republic, July 30, 2010) (view)
Quotes-start.png "Arizona’s law is not a case of a state helping the federal government do a job it neglected. It is a radical upending of immigration priorities, part of a spiteful crusade to force a mass exodus of illegal immigrants" Quotes-end.png
From Showdown in Arizona, by The New York Times editorial board (The New York Times, July 28, 2010) (view)

Against this position


Quotes-start.png "Too bad, says Judge Bolton. If the state finds too many suspected illegal immigrants, it might overburden the system. Let's put aside (as Bolton does) that the system already gets 1 million inquiries a year, that it has a theoretical capacity to process 1.5 million and that, as of now, Arizona only makes 80,000 inquiries annually, meaning even a drastic increase could be accommodated. If the federal government fears a surge from Arizona, couldn't it add some positions to the 153 staffers currently assigned to the database? Think of it as stimulus." Quotes-end.png
From Joke's on Arizona, by Rich Lowry (New York Post, July 30, 2010) (view)
Quotes-start.png "“An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration,” she writes, “will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.” Earlier in her decision, Judge Bolton sets out the different kinds of preemption, e.g. field preemption (where federal regulation is so comprehensive it “occupies the field”) and conflict preemption (where a state law is at odds with a federal law). This is something utterly different: “We can’t be bothered to answer the phone” preemption." Quotes-end.png
From Detaining Arizona, by National Review editorial board (National Review, July 29, 2010) (view)

Mixed on this position


No results