US District Judge Robert Broomfield ordered a halt to Maricopa County, Arizona's prosecutions of both human smugglers and those who arrange to have themselves smuggled into the United States on Friday. As of June 2011, 75 percent of the approximately 1,800 people charged under a 2005 state law were facing charges of conspiracy for participating in their own smuggling across the border. The county's attorney, Bill Montgomery, said that while Broomfield's order didn't specifically bar prosecutions of smugglers, he could not ethically allow any prosecutions under that law because of the possible broader implications of the judge's reasoning. A lawyer for the county said it would request the judge clarify those implications as it considers whether or not to appeal.
According to the Arizona Republic, the judge said on Friday that the state policy was unconstitutional because immigration enforcement is the sole responsibility of the federal government. Phoenix attorney Tim Casey, who represented Maricopa County in the lawsuit, told the paper, "The open question is whether you can still go after the coyote." The Republic writes that few of those migrants who faced conspiracy charges were ever actually tried. Instead, the law served as a pretext for deportations, as migrants would usually be held without bond, pleaded down to lesser charges and finally deported with a felony conviction that would likely keep them from ever being able to return legally. The deputies of Sheriff Joe Arpaio would make arrests at "drop houses" - places where migrants are held for periods before they move onto the next stage of their journey - or upon stopping vehicles transporting the migrants.
The law, which was passed in 2005 in response to anti-immigration sentiment among Arizona voters, was followed several weeks later by a legal opinion issued by the county's top prosecutor saying immigrants who were suspected of turning to smugglers to help them get into the country could be charged with conspiracy under the law. Maricopa County was the only county in Arizona to interpret the law in that way. Immigrant advocates have fought that interpretation, saying it was originally intended to target smuggling operations which are often controlled by violent drug cartels and their affiliates. We Are America/Somos America had originally filed the case in 2006 before it was thrown out three years later under a law that stopped lawsuits which could potentially interfere with ongoing prosecutions. It was reinstated a year later. We Are America and the other coalition of groups which pushed the lawsuit weren't seeking monetary damages, but rather that the policy be declared unconstitutional.
RELATED: Border Patrol To Test Dashboard Cameras Amid Complaints Of Deadly Force Used On Immigrants
© 2024 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
