I can only quibble with her on a minor issue:
The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not
necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither
the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was
“unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries,
asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain
enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and
women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But
presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal
government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration
status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the
country, ending the investigation.
Aliens admitted on the visa waiver program now do not have a document issued to them to prove their lawful status. Previously they were issued Form I-94W Admission/Departure Record. However now an electronic record for their admission is held by DHS. However, they do have a stamp placed in their passport showing the admission date and the date admitted to, so they do have a record readily available to them.
The second group, those assisting law enforcement, are in almost all cases given parole status.
The only groups that don't have status who are in practice, but not law, allowed to remain, are asylum applicants and VAWA applicants. Neither group has a right to remain unless ordered by a hearing officer of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an office of the Department of Justice. Technically they have no status and are subject to arrest by DHS and are routinely arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol and placed in removal proceedings where they make their plea for asylum.
It is important to point out that legal permanent residents and lawfully admitted visitors are not impacted by SB1070 at all. Legal Permanent Residents are issued Form I-551 Alien Registration Receipt Card, commonly called the green card, and non-immigrant temporary visitors are issued Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record. Both groups are required to carry said documents when in public. This clearly shows that Bolton's decision is without foundation:
The United States argues that this section is preempted because it will result
in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and will burden federal resources
and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.
She even goes so far as to deliberatly misconstrue the law and misinterpret the clear language suggesting that those with identification or are U.S. citizens will be held for an immigration check:
The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who
is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this
sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.”
(Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.)5 Arizona goes on to state,
“[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law
enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every
single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is
absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the
country.” (Id.) The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona
Which only shows her dishonesty and political motivation.