Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional

Not all of it will be thrown out by the courts -- but the most controversial provision has to be. Here's why

By James Doty

Monday, Apr 26, 2010


Minutes after signing the nation's toughest illegal immigration law, Arizona governor Jan Brewer was asked about her confidence in its ability to withstand a legal challenge. Even the most complex legal wars begin with public relations battles, and the question provided the governor a good opportunity for a first strike -- a full-throated defense of the law's legality. She passed.

“Well, you know,” Brewer said, "it's probably going to survive, I think, i-i-in most areas."

The governor's hesitation was warranted. Although Brewer might be right that much of the law is legally unobjectionable, there is a high probability that its most controversial provision will be struck down before the law goes into effect.

The "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (known mainly as SB 1070) requires that police officers determine the immigration status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the country illegally. The officer must then verify the suspect's immigration status with the federal government.

As many have noted, the most obvious (and provocative) question raised by this provision is, "What do illegal immigrants look like?" They're probably Hispanic, but so are 30 percent of Arizona's residents. So unless the law authorizes the stopping and questioning of any person who looks darker than the average Caucasian, there needs to be some other criteria that set apart illegal aliens from lawful residents.


But so far, no one has come up with any. When asked what other factors an officer might use to single out an unlawful resident, Brewer replied, "We have to trust our law enforcement."

remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/26/is_arizona_immigration_law_constitutional/index.html

part of the country

This is where the strength of the argument will rest to shut this down, and hopefully asap.

*continued here: also subjects the law to what might be called the "Papers, please" line of attack. Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers can't simply stop people on the street and force them to answer questions. Instead, policemen can generally detain people only if there are specific and objective facts that suggest criminal activity is afoot.

Once this is shut down as unconstitutional, there should be less of this type of garbage attempted by the other states. I HOPE!

police officers can't simply stop people on the street

Then I guess road checks(aka DUI checkpoints) are unconstitutional?
Try telling that to LEO in Georgia!!

Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion."


Constitutional under the doctrine of exigent circumstances, is the justification, as far as I understand it.

An economic boycott might help Arizona's legislature see the error of its ways - at least for now.

How come the Arizona Republicans are focusing so much on this immigration issue? Shouldn't they be doing something important, like creating jobs and fixing the economy that they destroyed? Hello! Obviously, this is what is important to you when you are a Republican. They hate America, yet they don't want anybody from foreign countries to immigrate here! Duh! I don't get it!

is to feed their racist base. When the law is found unconstitutional, the Republicans who promoted it will likely say,
see, it's the activist judges fault...but we did try!