Arizona law is constitutional

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by LilOlLady, Jun 18, 2010.

  1. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
    Controversial immigration law violates civil rights, critics say

    Arizona's controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.
    However, the professors said the law “could” create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.
    The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego's campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.
    Arizona's law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person's immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.
    Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, “could “ lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.
    Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.
    Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.
    "I don't see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy," Alexander said.
    Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.
    Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government's failure to secure the border.
    In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.
    About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.
    "The problem is the application of the law," said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. "On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race."
    Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally.
    The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.
    "Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course," he said. "Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional."
    The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person's immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person's status.
    Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person's apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.
    Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.
    "I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced," Schwarzschild said. "But it certainly doesn't, on its face."
    REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional

    :clap2::clap2::clap2:
     
  2. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    Obama who is a Constitional lawyer already know this, so why is he bringing a suit aginst Arizona? Purely political to say to Hispanics that he tried. He will try Immigration Reform for the very same reason. He knows it will fail also.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "If men were fundamentally good,
    government would not be necessary"
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2010
  3. Jeremy
    Offline

    Jeremy TRANSFER!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,777
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +1,190
    No question it is legal. And more states are will follow suit.
     
  4. Angelhair
    Offline

    Angelhair Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,597
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +153
    'Obama who is a Constitional lawyer already know this, so why is he bringing a suit aginst Arizona? Purely political to say to Hispanics that he tried. He will try Immigration Reform for the very same reason. He knows it will fail also.'

    Of course he knew - he just loves to grandstand. Hope if he tries a reform it will fail.
    Yesterday I was at a graduation ceremony. When we finished the Pledge to the Flag someone shouted - viva Mexico! It made me sick as I know the reason they did it was to show that they were not supporting the Pledge of Allegiance. They hurt themselves more than anybody else. The best thing to do is ignore the idiots - which everybody did. WE have to show more class as they have none.
     
  5. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761

    Angelhair, we have to shuck the class and get down and dirty as they are, It is the only language they understand and then they will back away. Remember the tea baggers?
    Class will get us no where witht these people. They fight dirty and we fight dirtier.
     
  6. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Of course it's Constitutional. The people who wrote it very carefully did so with an eye toward this exact thing. I find it sad myself that state legislators have to anticipate the President trying to undermine their states, but they DID anticipate that very thing.
     
  7. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    when a new law is passed, and there is a question as to whether or not it is "constitutional", many folks, like the three professors listed in the OP, can have "opinions" on the question..... but until the Supremes weigh in on it, it is all just speculation.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,559
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,973
    Ya except for that whole thing of the Arizona law mirroring the federal law. Once again if this goes to court then what is being said is that the Federal law is Unconstitutional.
     
  9. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    I really, REALLY wish one of these people who keeping parroting, "Unconstitutional!" would explain exactly HOW SB1070 is Unconstitutional, preferably with an actual citation FROM the Constitution.
     
  10. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    I happen to believe that this Bill is constitutional, however Article 1 Section 8 is what they will argue. This section lists specific powers of Congress


    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


    and the people that wrote this Bill know this exactly that is why they EXACTLY mirrored the Federal law, They will argue that their law is in fact uniform to the federal law and that states that do NOT mirror the federal law are the ones in violation of the CON, not the ones who mirror the Federal law.

    I really don't see how they lose this one, I think Obama knows it to.
     

Share This Page