U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of the new Arizona enforcement law from taking effect in what is being described as a victory for opponents (read pro-illegal immigration).

Arizona Gov. Brewer called Bolton’s decision halting the law “a bump in the road,” and her spokesman said they plan to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Good luck with that appeal - ultra liberal San Francisco sanctuary city. Seems like there is a conflict of interest with near zero chance of a fair outcome. At what point is it acceptable for a state to disregard a radical judge whose injunction clearly aids an illegal activity that continues to harm the citizens of the state?

To quote the erudite VDH:

“…those states that pass laws emulating federal immigration statutes will have their legislation either voided by the court or neutered by the federal government.” But “those cities who pass sanctuary laws in direct violation of federal illegal immigration statutes will have their legislation either validated or ignored by both the court and the federal and state governments.

Conclusion? The federal government and federal courts prefer to ignore laws that violate their own, but void those that copy them.

We are in revolutionary times when the law is a malleable thing, its validity predicated only on its perceived social utility at any given moment.

A positive side effect of the Arizona law’s passage (up until this ruling) is that illegal aliens have been fleeing Arizona in droves. This proves conclusively that you really can control and drastically reduce illegal immigration if you actually enforce federal immigration laws. This is precisely why there is such a furor over enforcing this law — they know it works.