I wonder how many other state laws that follow or uphold federal laws are unconstitutional Andrew Seidman of McClatchy News, if we follow your stupid logic?
The three Fox News lady lawyers - Kelly, Wiehl, and Guilfoyle all disagree, saying the AZ law is on solid ground, constitutionally.
The ultimate hypocrisy;
Do as we say, not as we do!
Oh, and by the way, only we get to pick and choose the law; now on you knees servant and pay tribute.
So where are the lawsuits against the sanctuary cities?
The selective enforcement of immigration law invalidates the suit.
Substitute “investigate kidnappings” or “investigate counterfeiting” for “verify immigration status” to clearly see how mind-boggling stupid the federal lawsuit would be under those circumstances.
The “constitutional” thing is a red herring. The real question is the individual states’ obligation to protect their citizens and freedom to do so when the feds fail to do their job.
Since when did the states create a federal government to be their lord and master?
eric the redblack wouldn’t know the Constitution if it bit him in the arse.
When did this DOJ gave a shite about the Constitution?
Holder is crossing many constitution lines, in rapid succession. Exhibit B: dismissing the new black panther voting intimidation case.
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.