US View: Arizona migrant law ruling
US commentators give their views of federal judge Susan Bolton's decision to block key parts of Arizona's strict anti-illegal immigration law, hours before it took effect.
EJ Montini says in The Arizona Republic newspaper that the ruling has neither clarified nor ended the battle over border security:
"It seems confusing, and it is. But there is one thing about which there is no doubt. When someone unfamiliar with the judge's decision asks, 'Who won?' you can say with complete confidence: Nobody."
Stephanie McCrummen says in the Washington Post that while opponents and supporters of the tough law will be further polarised, those tasked with enforcing it will be relieved:
"Perhaps the only full sigh of relief was breathed by police chiefs around the state, many of whom do not share Arpaio's zealousness. Almost from the start, they had sought to temper the heated rhetoric with some broader realities: Illegal immigration in Arizona is down, as is crime, which is no more associated with illegal immigrants than any other subset of the population. Many never expected the law to result in mass arrests or deportations, as activists on both sides had predicted, but mostly to instill fear."
The editorial board in the New Jersey Star-Ledger says Judge Bolton moved "wisely" on parts of the law, but that the fight is far from over:
"Judge Bolton's partial injunction is a reality check for those who want to rush in with their own laws. But the only way to stem the tide of illegal immigration and bad state policy is for Congress to pass long overdue immigration reform legislation."
The Christian Science Monitor's editorial boards also picks out Congress saying that the ruling means the legal process will "now act as a surrogate debate" for a what is a political problem:
"The answers aren't easy, and the courts certainly can't address them all. But doing something is better than the status quo of Congress doing very little. That's probably why Bolton took pains to both encourage Arizona while also writing a lengthy explanation for her decision."
Julia Preston says in The New York Times that the ruling has broadly vindicated the Obama administration's high-stakes move to challenge the law:
"Now Judge Bolton's ruling has shifted the political pressure back onto President Obama to show that he can effectively enforce the border, and to move forward with an overhaul of the immigration laws, so that states will not seek to step in as Arizona did."
Bob Egelko writing in the San Francisco Chronicle agrees, calling it an Obama victory:
"A federal judge's decision barring police in Arizona from demanding immigration documents from people they suspect of being in the country illegally was a dramatic victory for the Obama administration and civil rights groups that may be hard to overturn, at least in the short run."
However, Ken Dilanian and Lisa Mascaro say in the Los Angeles Times that the ruling is unlikely to change the politics of immigration in the US:
"The equation spelling gridlock in Congress remains unchanged: The comprehensive overhaul promoted by Obama - and Bush - lacks any GOP support in the Senate, and therefore cannot pass."
Links in full:
• EJ Montini| Arizona Republic | Who Won? Nobody
• Stephanie McCrummen | The Washington Post |
Ruling on Arizona immigration law heightens tensions
• EJ Montini| The New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial board | Federal judge reins in Arizona immigration law
• Christian Science Monitor editorial board| Arizona Republic | Next steps for the Arizona immigration law after court's preliminary decision
• Julia Preston | New York Times | Ruling Against Arizona Is a Warning for Other States
• Bob Egelko| San Francisco Chronicle | Judge's ruling on Arizona law a win for Obama
• Ken Dilanian and Lisa Mascaro | Los Angeles Times | Court ruling unlikely to change politics of immigration
