Specious Reasoning and Ignores Prior Case Law

That is pretty much how Andy McCarthy at National Review Online describes Judge Susan Bolton's negative ruling on several key provisions of Arizona's controversial illegal immigration law. As a result of the ruling, police officers in Arizona will not be able to basically ask someone who they think is in the country illegally for identification which would tend to prove that person is here legally.

In her ruling, Bolton essentially bought the argument by Obama's Department of Justice that several provisions of the Arizona law are "preempted" by or violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because they effectively prevent federal immigration laws from being enforced. However, as you and I know full well, federal immigration laws aren't being enforced, so why Bolton would buy the DOJ's laughable claim to the contrary is beyond bewildering.

As McCarthy points out, Bolton also totally ignores prior case law which pretty much says the states may enact laws which deter illegal immigration. In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court stated:

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.

Unless you're totally deluded or an open borders zealot (the two of which have a great deal of overlap) this sounds exactly like the Arizona law.

If interested, you can read Judge Bolton's ruling here.

Update: The above excerpt from the Plyler case is at Footnote 23 of the majority opinion.