All Communist fronts.
If there is a provable mexican connection then the ACLU should be forced to register as an agent of a foreign power. This will neuter some of their lawyer fee claims.
My heart breaks for what the people of Arizona are going through... not only are they being attacked from outside but also from within.
Pelosi let the cat out of the bag...saying Arizona would get money for enforcement....cutting out the feds...
We already have a link with Mexico. It’s called a Border.....that’s the only link we need.
Domestic enemies.
What would be their “Standing†(is that the correct term?)How does the Federal law not provoke them, but the State law does?
already ‘settled science’ as Algore would say:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968) - FindLaw | Cases and Codes:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1
BTT
If these groups had been half as militant in favor of the unborn, libs wouldn’t have to import their voters from 3rd world countries.
ACLU, MALDEF, SEIU, UFCW, NAACP
In a real world, since they have no harm, they should have no standing to sue.
I don’t like what the legal system as do to us.
ACLU Announces Attack on Arizona Law
[Short Version] The ACLU has issued a press advisory on the federal court case it will file on Monday against the new Arizona law concerning illegal aliens in that state. The suit is actually in favor of open borders, and is based on a misreading of the federal and state laws and the relevant facts. Those errors are shared by many in the press.
* * * *
The facts for this article, but not its legal conclusions, come from an article in the Phoenix New Times Blog on 14 May, 2010. That article is based on a press advisory from the ACLU that it will sue on behalf of a “coalition of groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC).”
All but one of these organizations are known to favor open borders, which means that anyone who can get into the US by whatever means, is entitled to stay here and claim all the benefits and privileges of US citizens, The puzzling participant is the NAACP. Its leaders are apparently unaware that black Americans are being specially impacted in the current recession, and that their unemployment is related to the millions of Mexican citizens who are in the US now, holding US jobs.
According to the ACLU, and repeated as true by this article, the new Arizona law would involve “racial discrimination” because it would empower Arizona police to :demand papers” from anyone suspected of being an illegal alien. The new law does no such thing. It only requires an inquiry on citizenship AFTER there has been a legitimate stop made on a basis other than immigration. The reporter on this article, like Attorney General Eric Holder, has reached a judgment on this law without bothering to read it.
Also, there is a federal legal requirement that all aliens who are in the US legally for any of a variety of reasons, must carry documents establishing their legal right to be here, on their persons. A little light reading on the federal statutes would establish this.
The article concludes that the Arizona law is an effort to “drive brown people out of the US.” This is a gross insult to the millions of people of Mexican descent who live in Arizona and are naturalized citizens, or who are born as American citizens, going back five generations or more. But it is sometimes the habit of the ACLU, and the reporters who follow the ACLU line, to insult the very people in whose name they claim they are acting.
Finally, a charge of discrimination depends on facts. It is easy to establish that about 95% of the illegal immigrants coming into the US through Arizona are Mexican citizens. If it turns out that 95% of the illegals stopped under the new Arizona law and turned over to ICE for deportation are Mexican citizens, hen there is zero discrimination under this law.
On legal and factual grounds, the case about to be filed should be thrown out. Many reporters will be surprised by that outcome. But that is their fault for not investigating the legal and factual claims of the ACLU before writing about this subject.
Source on the Internet: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/05/aclu_announces_anti-sb_1070_la.php
Ping!
For instance, "Latinos" are equated to a race.
No such thing exists even by the more expansive definitions of race from a century ago - when it essentially meant "nationality".
It's a name made up in the U.S., used nowhere else.
Basically, this whole thing can be encapsulated as
The usual suspects, I see. The LaRaza skunks must be in there somewhere.
Hey! ACLU, SEIU, MALDEF, NAACP, UFCW, NILC ... read this the SHUT UP!.
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
What is their standing?
Heck, you Coommies. Arizona is only trying to do what the Federal Government IS SUPPOSED TO DO but the men in the White House for the past18 years have been not disposed to do!
This is beautiful...because this give excellent ammunition to Tea Party candidates running against opponents who have taken money from these Commies!!!!