Arizona law halted

"Thank God there is a God," said Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino, an outspoken critic of the Arizona law known as S.B. 1070. "Today’s decision to block the most extreme aspects of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 upholds the Constitution of the United States and helps to ensure respect, dignity and equal treatment for all people."

Baca, other Democrats and immigration advocates praised the temporary injunction Wednesday, while Republicans and illegal-immigration opponents said the temporary injunction was nonsensical, a political calculation, or both.

"It doesn’t make any sense based on what Congress has done in recent years," said Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea.

He said Congress, through various programs and pieces of legislation, has been asking state and local law enforcement agencies for more help in dealing with illegal immigration.

Tim Donnelly, a former Minuteman running for the 59th District Assembly seat, said the decision is nothing more than judicial activism.

"I find this trend deeply disturbing, where the judiciary gets involved and nullifies the voice of the people," Donnelly said. "They’re essentially telling local law enforcement and local authorities that they don’t have the authority to enforce existing federal law."

Along with the section calling for officers to check immigration status, the federal judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places – a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said in her decision.

She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them slight revisions to Arizona immigration statutes, went into effect at 12:01 a.m. today.

Rick Oltman, a spokesman for the anti-illegal-immigration group Californians for Population Stabilization, said the law will likely make its way to the Supreme Court.

"This is not the end of it," he said. "This is just the beginning of it. I think it is going to irritate a lot of people that, once again, we have the federal government thwarting an attempt to enforce a law the federal government refused to enforce."

Emilio Amaya, an immigration advocate and executive director of the San Bernardino Community Service Center, said he was concerned that some parts of the law – specifically one that makes it a crime to stop a vehicle to pick up day laborers – were not blocked.

"We were hoping to get a full exemption," said Amaya, who said he was nonetheless pleased with the temporary injunction overall. "It sends a signal to other state governments that they are not in the business of regulating immigration. But the fact we didn’t get a full injunction, if it’s not disconcerting, it is concerning."

The law has inspired similar action elsewhere, prompted a boycott against Arizona and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Gov. Jan Brewer’s lawyers said Arizona shouldn’t have to suffer from America’s broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, said the federal government should be cooperating, not fighting with states.

"Enhanced cooperation between federal and local authorities is critical to effective immigration enforcement," Dreier said. "Instead of filing lawsuits, the federal government should be focused on enforcing our immigration laws."

Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes.

"Arizona’s misguided immigration law was a direct challenge to the freedoms of every American," Baca said. "If fully enacted, the law would have inevitably led to racial profiling, forcing some Americans to prove their citizenship based on the color of their skin, while others would stand little or no chance of being affected."

The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled.

Federal authorities have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries. But local Republicans argue that states feel pressed to act because of federal inaction.

"We are dealing with an administration that did not ask for any additional funding for border enforcement this year until after Arizona officials passed their own enforcement law in desperation," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands. "There is no doubt that our immigration officials have not done what is necessary to stop the violence and lawlessness along our border, and that is what caused Arizona to enact this law."

The core of the government’s case is that federal immigration law trumps state law – an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles. The judge plainly accepted that view, pointing out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims that U.S. law supersedes state law.

Staff Writer James Koren and The Associated Press contributed to this report.