Arizona Immigration Law Challenged by ACLU in Suit

[MNeagle]

By William McQuillen

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- The American Civil Liberties Union is leading a legal challenge to Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigration, claiming the measure would allow racial profiling by the police.

A group of civil rights organizations led by the ACLU alleges that the law interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to a complaint filed today in federal court in Phoenix. The group also claims the law infringes the free-speech rights of day laborers in the state.

The Arizona law, which would take effect later this year, makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and requires local police to determine the immigration status of anyone suspected of being in the country without proper documentation.

“Arizona’s law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a ‘show me your papers’ country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign,” Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

The coalition includes the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

The case is Friendly House v. Whiting, 10cv1061, U.S. District Court for Arizona (Phoenix).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahA1LDnAghBw&pos=9

[sunshine05]

Their case is pretty weak. I think it will be thrown out (hopefully).

[kregener]

LOL! Our law is crafted after FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

Asshats...

[k-os]

You know where this is going, right?

Just to be fair, we are ALL going to have to show our (national) ID card.

This will be the "compromise", in which neither side gets what they want.

[kregener]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/webl...ttacks-ariz-la/

Calif. penal code pertaining to immigration similar to Ariz.'s SB 1070

By Kerry Picket on May 15, 2010

The Los Angeles City Council's vote to boycott Arizona caused more consternation than anything else. L.A. City Council members voted an overwhelming 13-1 to terminate any city contracts with Arizona (worth about $7.7 million) as did other American cities who have considered resolutions to protest the Arizona law or seek boycotts. Among these cities are San Francisco and St. Paul, Minn.

The lone dissenter on the council, Republican Greig Smith, said in an e-mail statement:

"The Hahn motion is not in the economic best interests of the City of Los Angeles. I have always opposed using the Los Angeles City Council to weigh in on non-related social issues that are not within the purview of Los Angeles. I voted no on the motion to boycott Arizona."

Unfortunately, Mr. Smith's thinking did not find its way to the United Nations. The international body, that recognizes genocidal tyrants and enables them to remain in power, weighed in on the debate, saying, "The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics."

"I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport," Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, a Democrat, said before the vote. "If I come across an officer who's had a bad day and feels the picture on my ID is not me, I could be summarily deported -- no questions asked. That is not American."

Oh really? I interviewed Mr. Reyes (ENTIRE AUDIO INTERVIEW) on Friday about his thinking on Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070. While Mr. Reyes insisted he read the 16-page law and is aware that the law prohibits law enforcement officers from asking individuals their legal status based on their race, national origin, and color, he said that the law would not stop law enforcement officers from racially profiling anyway. (AUDIO)

"Why should I as an American worry about walking down a street in the United States fearing harassment, because of the color of my skin? Why should I have to live like that?"(AUDIO)

I pressed him on that issue reminding the city councilman that SB 1070 is based on federal immigration law of the past 70 years. I asked what exactly changed in his mind.

"You have a law that begins to classify and categorize a whole group of people that look a certain way. You're creating a second-class citizen. You're creating an environment of fear." Below is a partial transcript of our conversation:

PICKET: Where exactly in the law does it say that? Considering that it prohibits that? As I'm asking here, federal law which has been around for about seventy years has been saying that undocumented individuals have to be carrying papers, so what exactly has changed between federal law of the last seventy years and Arizona's law?

REYES: What's changed is you have a very active effort to round up people that look a certain way, and if you have proof you are an American citizen that let you go, and if you don't they deport you. So now, that I look like a Mexican, and I am Mexican American, I become a target.(AUDIO)

PICKET: Why is this law considered any different than what has been around for the last seventy years...because it's being enforced?

REYES: Why does a state have to call that out? Why can't it just follow the federal law like you said for the past seventy years? (AUDIO)

I also spoke with Becca Doten, communications director for Los Angeles City Councilman and Democrat Richard Alarcon. Doten relayed the Councilman's response to my questions regarding his vote to boycott Arizona.

"He read the law. He doesn't believe that Arizona Police are inherently racist, but he believes that the law will create circumstances that can enable racial profiling, because they [The Arizona Police] have never been trained on immigration law, false ID's, etcetera, that's specific to immigration enforcement. It's not that they're inherently racist but that they're unskilled in trying to enforce a law in which they have not had specific training."

This is an interesting argument, considering the California Penal Code actually requires that every law enforcement agency in the state shall "fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws."

Below is a copy of section 834b of the California Penal Code that deals with immigration law enforcement at the local level.

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Here is Arizona's SB 1070

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

15 immigration laws; indemnification

16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR

17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS

28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM

29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE

30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND

31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY

33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES

34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO

35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE

36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

UPDATED 5/17/10 - Whoa! Apparently, Los Angeles politicians have not read their own penal codes, because it appears to read similarly to SB 1070. Unfortunately, California has looked the other way with a wink and a nod and allowed the City and County of San Francisco to become a City and County of Refuge. The contradiction is another area that Californians have yet to clear up themselves.(h/t J.Scharf)

In 2007 San Francisco was sued for not complying with state law and failing to report non - citizens for drug arrests. It should be noted that according to reports, the individual who filed the lawsuit was a "70-year old Portola district resident who came to the United States from Nicaragua at the age of 9... said he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially those who break the law after they get here."

Placing boycotts on Arizona, using excuses like SB 1070 could "lead to racial profiling", or that the Arizona police are not sufficiently "trained" to handle a job the federal authorities should be doing, is just nonsense. The Los Angeles City Council and cities currently boycotting Arizona might want to re-examine their own immigration laws before they start nitpicking at others.

[Gaillo]

You know where this is going, right?

Just to be fair, we are ALL going to have to show our (national) ID card.

This will be the "compromise", in which neither side gets what they want.


Ding! Ding! Ding ding ding!!!

We have a winner.

[kregener]

The police can stop anybody, anytime they want, and demand your..."papers".

Been this way for decades and decades.

If you cannot see that in Arizona we are trying to stem the flow of illegals who eat out the sustenance of our area, then i simply do not know what to tell you.

Sort of like if we only searched Islamics at the airport. Hijackings and aerial explosions would PLUMMET.

[k-os]

If you cannot see that in Arizona we are trying to stem the flow of illegals who eat out the sustenance of our area, then i simply do not know what to tell you.


I live in South Florida. I understand very well what Arizona is facing in terms of illegal leeches.

However, everyone should try to understand that it's our fault for making the USA so hospitable to the illegals (in terms of the freebies). We need to stop the freebies, and illegal border crossing will become a non-issue.

I say that we need to ask for proof of citizenship when a person applies for food stamps, applies for section 8 housing, enrolls in school, etc. When someone applies for (and periodically after they receive) any government funded hand-out, they should have to prove that they are one of the legally governed. How hard is that?

[Celtic Rogue]

If you cannot see that in Arizona we are trying to stem the flow of illegals who eat out the sustenance of our area, then i simply do not know what to tell you.


I live in South Florida. I understand very well what Arizona is facing in terms of illegal leeches.

However, everyone should try to understand that it's our fault for making the USA so hospitable to the illegals (in terms of the freebies). We need to stop the freebies, and illegal border crossing will become a non-issue.

I say that we need to ask for proof of citizenship when a person applies for food stamps, applies for section 8 housing, enrolls in school, etc. When someone applies for (and periodically after they receive) any government funded hand-out, they should have to prove that they are one of the legally governed. How hard is that?


Yep I couldn't agree more!!!! but I don't blame the little guy for making our country more inviting and hospitable... I blame the politicians for not following the peoples wishes... they have long ago stop being our representatives1!1

[Book]

I say that we need to ask for proof of citizenship...



http://www.sanctuarycities.info/gallery2/d/213-1/mexifornia.jpg

They have "proof" of citizenship. They work for cash. Seal the border with a real wall. Round 'em up and toss 'em over the real border wall. Guard the border wall using snipers with real bullets. Problem solved.

http://chweb.cvtech.org/ossm/1%20-%20OSSM%20Extreme%20Challenge/Images/catapult.jpg
DEPORTATION DEVICE OVER THE REAL BORDER WALL

:oo-->

[Ponce]

You got it Mr. Kregener.......all that the state is doing is to ratified the federal laws and doing what the federals should have done...........the time to stop the illegals was at the beginning while there was time to do so.

And some day the country will recognised the fact that the same thing should had being done with the Zionists in control of the US.......but by then, as now with the illegals, it will be to late....... have your passport at the ready.

[k-os]

Yep I couldn't agree more!!!! but I don't blame the little guy for making our country more inviting and hospitable... I blame the politicians for not following the peoples wishes... they have long ago stop being our representatives1!1


I don't blame the little guy either, unless he is hiring the illegals. Obviously, this is part of the problem. Unfortunately, this practice is very prevalent in my area, because legal residents will not work for the hourly wage that small business owners can hire illegal immigrants.

There are young, healthy, legal residents who opt not to work because if they take a job, even a low paying one, they will lose most or all of their government funded benefits (section 8 housing, health care, food stamps), not to mention unemployment benefits. It seems an obvious choice to me. With a set-up like that, who wouldn't just lay around instead taking their government cheese?

[Sparky]

...
I say that we need to ask for proof of citizenship when a person applies for food stamps, applies for section 8 housing, enrolls in school, etc. When someone applies for (and periodically after they receive) any government funded hand-out, they should have to prove that they are one of the legally governed. How hard is that?

It's an excellent idea. It got proposed as a bill here in Massachusetts a few weeks ago. It got shot down!

This prompted the following quote from our attorney general Martha Coakley (who ran against Scott Brown for U.S. Senate): "Technically, it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts."

http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/Coakley--It-s-Not-Illegal-To-Be-An-Illegal-In-Mass

[k-os]

...
I say that we need to ask for proof of citizenship when a person applies for food stamps, applies for section 8 housing, enrolls in school, etc. When someone applies for (and periodically after they receive) any government funded hand-out, they should have to prove that they are one of the legally governed. How hard is that?

It's an excellent idea. It got proposed as a bill here in Massachusetts a few weeks ago. It got shot down!

This prompted the following quote from our attorney general Martha Coakley (who ran against Scott Brown for U.S. Senate): "Technically, it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts."

http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/Coakley--It-s-Not-Illegal-To-Be-An-Illegal-In-Mass


Wow, Sparky, that is pretty bad. It's more proof that our "representatives" represent no one but themselves, and their positions are completely transparent. Their decisions are not made for the good of their state or the country. Their decisions are made based on how many votes it will add or subtract from their next campaign.

[Celtic Rogue]

...
I say that we need to ask for proof of citizenship when a person applies for food stamps, applies for section 8 housing, enrolls in school, etc. When someone applies for (and periodically after they receive) any government funded hand-out, they should have to prove that they are one of the legally governed. How hard is that?

It's an excellent idea. It got proposed as a bill here in Massachusetts a few weeks ago. It got shot down!

This prompted the following quote from our attorney general Martha Coakley (who ran against Scott Brown for U.S. Senate): "Technically, it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts."

http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/Coakley--It-s-Not-Illegal-To-Be-An-Illegal-In-Mass


Wow, Sparky, that is pretty bad. It's more proof that our "representatives" represent no one but themselves, and their positions are completely transparent. Their decisions are not made for the good of their state or the country. Their decisions are made based on how many votes it will add or subtract from their next campaign.


VOTE out all incumbants!!!

That have not been following the Constitution or working for themselves as opposed to the peoples business!