A group of anti-SB 1070 military veterans stand outside the morning prayer service at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in downtown Phoenix, waiting to join a march to the state Capitol.
"One of the things we served for was to uphold the U.S. Constitution," said one, an Army veteran and tribal member who identified himself as Running Deer. "There's a need to secure the border, but you can't target people on race."
One speaker at the morning prayer service in Phoenix: German Cadenas, 23, who graduated with dual degrees in business administration and psychology last year after working his way through Arizona State University.
He has found an office job and would like to go on to graduate school and become a mental health professional, but says it's challenging. Born in Venezuela, he has been here illegally since he was 15, when he arrived with his family. Because he hasn't been able to adjust his status, he cannot have access to government school loan.
Several people identifying themselves as undocumented speak at a morning prayer service, among them a woman who has had several family members leave the state in fear of SB 1070.
"Yesterday, my brother was going to leave," Patricia Rosas said. "But because the law was stopped, he won't."
A prayer service at a downtown cathedral begins a series of planned rallies and demonstrations in Phoenix today, the first day of the implementation of a pared-down SB 1070. Yesterday, a federal judge blocked some of the state anti-illegal immigration law's more controversial components. An appeal by the state is planned.
While certain sections of Arizona's SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law have been blocked by a preliminary injunction in federal court, the battle over the controversial Arizona measure is far from over. Nor is the measure itself, as portions of it will still take effect today as scheduled.
So what takes effect and what doesn't? Wednesday morning's ruling in Phoenix by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked the sections of the law that conflicted most with federal law. Among these were provisions that drew the most concern from opponents who feared racial profiling, such as one that would require local officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of individuals they stop or detain if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is illegally in the country. The judge ruled on the basis of federal law pre-empting the state law.