Posted on 07/06/2010 7:59:30 PM PDT by Dallas59
I’m a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor’s appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for or renewing a driver’s license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I’m out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
Unfortunately, this bill looks to be so poorly constructed that Arizona will deservedly lose in court.
Here is the Text of AZ Senate Bill 1070.
Here are some of what I think are the more problematic portions of the law:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)..
(emphasis mine) The problem here is that Arizona fails to define the criteria for "reasonable suspicion." Is "dark skin and speaks Spanish" a legitimate grounds for reasonable suspicion? Probably not, and I believe this is the underlying basis for the "discrimination" portion of the federal suit. The courts will probably agree with them, and strike this portion of the bill -- effectively gutting it.
Other problems:
Arizona claims a right to collect and maintain information for purposes of "DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE."
Arizona has no authority to determine eligibility for federal benefits. That part will probably be struck down.
The court will also probably find fault with Arizona collecting information for the purpose of: "4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 9 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT."
Again, it is not up to Arizona to make that determination. At most, they can turn the matter over to federal officials, who do have the authority to make that determination.
There's also this clause:
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
Arizona cannot prosecute somebody on a state level for violation of a federal law, which is what part 2 of this clause requires them to do. At the least, giving the state such authority raises the possibility of violating the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
Also in this section, Arizona is claiming jurisdiction over "ANY PUBLIC LAND" -- including federal public lands (e.g. Grand Canyon National Park). I'm pretty sure they have no jurisdiction over federal public lands.
Next,
B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
There are significant jurisdictional difficulties here. Arizona probably doesn't have the authority to deputize federal officers to enforce state laws.
That's only through the top of Page 3 of the bill ... and we could go on.
As I said at the beginning, I agree with the underlying desire of the bill, which is to deal with illegal immigration. But this really isn't the way to do it.
A more effective approach would be for the various states' Attorneys General to get together and file suit against the FedGov over their failure to enforce the immigration laws.
Hardly. It's a straightforward statement of federal vs. state jurisdiction. Jurisdictional boundaries are a good thing, and the problem is that the Arizona law appears to be intruding into areas that are Constitutionally assigned to the federal government. The law really is out of line.
That does not alter the larger issue, which is that the Feds have most certainly failed to exercise proper control of the immigration situation, and that has certainly had deleterious effects on the several states.
And it is on that basis -- Federal inaction resulting in actual harm to the states -- that the states can and should team up to file suit against the Feds, to force them to do their duty.
Indeed, the very claims made by DOJ in their suit, would form a fine basis for such a state-filed suit.
Are you an attorney? Mark Levin is and he says it’s garbage and it reads like garbage to me and I don’t know why anyone on this forum would be defending it.
I have successfully sued the United States Justice Department in the past.
In order to do so, you must show virtual criminal conduct. AZ ain’t suing, they’re doing.
Apparently according to your homepage you’re not an attorney, you’re an orbitologist. Shouldn’t you be in orbit around something about now?
I'm not an attorney, but I can certainly read.
I'm not "defending" the federal suit, I'm saying that the Arizona law is significantly flawed on jurisdictional and other grounds, and for that reason the feds are quite likely to win their suit. I've even provided several examples, with discussion.
For your convenience, you can read the DOJ filing here.
If I read your comment correctly, I surmise that Mr. Levin is weighing in on the literary qualities federal suit, not the Arizona law. If you've paraphrased him correctly, he'd have to be speaking more as a conservative talk show host, than an attorney.
I agree that there are plenty of literary things to complain about (such as the discussion of "careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests"), but the jurisdictional legal basis for the federal suit appears to be both sound and compelling.
I have successfully sued the United States Justice Department in the past.
Congratulations. You, however, are not a state.
States are Constitutionally bound by the Supremacy clause, Article IV, clause 2: “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
In order to do so, you must show virtual criminal conduct. AZ ain’t suing, they’re doing.
And by "doing," Arizona will get spanked, and deservedly so. Their actions, while perhaps well-intended, are not well-considered.
A lawsuit by the several states would be a far more effective remedy, and the DOJ has handed them a perfect tool for the job.
The entire basis of the DOJ suit is that the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration. A lawsuit asking for relief is therefore appropriate, based on the demonstrable fact that the Federal government either cannot or will not fulfill the responsibilities over which it so stridently claims jurisdiction, and that their failure to act has resulted in demonstrable harm (monetary, criminal, and other) to the several states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.