Ruling on Arizona immigration law heightens tensions

In Arizona on Wednesday, police chiefs shifted plans, activists recalibrated and public tensions were generally elevated, rather than calmed, after a federal judge blocked key parts of the state's controversial immigration law from taking effect.

"We welcome it, but it's not a full victory," Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said from Phoenix of theruling. "The conditions that gave birth to [the law] are still on the table. This ruling does not address the hatred. Tensions will continue to rise, and some folks will be more angry now."

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton's ruling blocked the provision that had prompted the greatest outcry -- on that would require officers to check the immigration status of anyone they lawfully stop or arrest if the officer develops "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. Many, especially Hispanics, interpreted that as authorizing the harassment of anyone with brown skin.

Other parts of the law will take effect as scheduled Thursday. Alvarado said his group and others would go forward with modified plans to protest them, especially a section that bars people from soliciting work or hiring if it impedes traffic, a provision he said targets day laborers.

Likewise, groups that had backed the law said they would go ahead with rallies aimed at supporting their champion, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He has made a name for himself over the years by conducting -- and marketing -- immigration raids of the sort that some had hoped would become the norm in Arizona.

Less than an hour after Bolton issued her ruling, his sympathizers provided a glimpse of how they would cast the ruling.

"The president of the United States and this judge just took the side of illegal immigrants against the American citizenry," said William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration political action committee. "America is going to cry out in anger. Our mission is to channel that anger into political activities designed to rebuke the politicians and business leaders and special interest groups behind this invasion."

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 chiefs also had questions about how to implement the law. Among them: whether its requirements would interfere with regular police duties, how or whether it would apply to minors, where and how long people would be held while their status was checked, and how much the new mandate would cost, especially at a time when municipal budgets are strapped. Legal advisers provided an array of answers to those questions.

Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor, who filed a declaration in support of a federal challenge of the law, said he was pleased that Bolton recognized the legislation's "problematic" parts.

Now, he said, he is mostly worried about the reactions to the ruling, and what some have described as an air of vigilantism growing stronger in Arizona, a state that is worse off economically than almost any in the country, where guns are so common that some people wear them to the grocery store.

"When people feel so strongly on both sides," he said, "there is always potential for problems."