For two years, we have been living with the consequences of racial profiling state laws that violate our basic human and civil rights. These laws -- instigated by Arizona's SB 1070 -- were crafted by reckless politicians with one purpose, to dilute the increasing presence and political strength of immigrants and ethnic minorities.
But these mean-spirited laws that threaten the rights of citizens and immigrants will not be the last word. It is up to us to mobilize voters so that we have the final say.
That may seem like a daring statement, since the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if the precedent-setting Arizona law is unconstitutional.
SEIU joined civil rights groups and the federal government in lawsuits challenging SB 1070 because it violates the Constitution. States may have some good ideas about some issues, but only the federal government has the right to set immigration law. Arizona was out of bounds when it tried to expand its immigration authority. Under the Constitution, states cannot pre-empt federal authority on national immigration policy and create their own patchwork of laws, just like they cannot print their own currency, develop separate national security plans or sign their own treaties with foreign governments.
Arizona's "show me your papers" law opened the door to other heavy-handed enforcement laws in Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Utah and Alabama, which created a new set of issues not included in the current Supreme Court case.
Though pandering politicians claimed they were merely "enforcing our laws," these measures deter the work of local prosecutors and law enforcement officers because they destroy community policing and erode the ability to investigate violent crimes. That is the opinion of two of the last three state attorneys general from Arizona -- one Democrat and one Republican -- along with 42 additional former attorneys general from 27 states and the District of Columbia who filed a brief with the Supreme Court against SB 1070.
As the Supreme Court weighs the legal arguments, we must ask how a foolhardy law that legitimizes racial profiling, discrimination and harassment reached the court. Why do conservatives find it acceptable to interrogate and detain people just because of the way they look or speak?
Simply, laws are advanced by politicians who do not share our values. We also are mindful of the fact that laws are interpreted by Justices who are politically appointed, and the election of an anti-immigrant president or U.S. Senate majority could lead to less fair-minded judges in cases affecting our communities.
So, we must register to vote and elect leaders who believe that America was founded on the principle that all men and women are created equal, no matter what we look like or where we come from. Because when we do, we can make a difference.
Last year, Latinos helped throw out of office Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, SB 1070's sponsor. Instead of focusing on the economy, Pearce wasted the state's reputation on a law that placed families under siege because of the way they looked; forced Americans to carry citizenship papers at all times; and subjected Latinos, African-Americans, Asians and others to harassment whenever they went out in public.
This bad law is now in the hands of the court. But the futures of bad politicians are in our hands. With our votes, we will say, "This is not what America is about. Not in my America."
Jim Wallis: Arizona's Immigration Legislation Undermines Christian Values
Because ~ its been U.S. Federal Law, since 1986?
U.S.C. 8 § 1357 : US Code - Section 1357: Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power
without warrant -
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien
as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;
(2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering
or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law
or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission,
exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any
alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the
alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any
such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant
can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be
taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer
of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their
right to enter or remain in the United States;
Which is why we get higher immigration than Americans want and lax enforcement: the politicians are bought by special interests like your SEIU.
First, he claims he has been the subject of “racial profiling” for two years due to laws like Arizona’s SB 1070. This would be very difficult since the federal government got an injunction halting its enforcement.
Second, the law specifically precludes racial profiling. The law states an officer may not use race or color (i.e. how someone “looks”) in making a stop for the determination of immigration status. An Arizona policeman can only ask for immigration documentation if he first stopped you for some other constitutionally approved reason (e.g. a traffic stop) and then had another non-racial reason to question your immigration status. The government could have waited (I swear Obama and Holder didn’t go to law school) and observed how it was enforced (i.e. it might be facially neutral but applied in a discriminatory manner) but they chose not to wait and made a facial challenge
Finally, although the Court has yet to rule, it is likely constitutional. The specifics of the Arizona law mirror Federal immigration law, thus any argument for preemption is dubious i.e. there is no express or implied conflict with federal law. For example, the infamous section of 1070 requiring aliens to have documentation is already a requirement under federal law. The administration is making a novel claim that 1070 doesn’t conflict with federal law as written but with how the federal law is enforced
However, you are wrong in that it is constitutional... simply because it sets IMMIGRATION POLICY, and states are specifically prohibited from doing so. In addition, this "law" that Arizona found it was important to pass, already exists as Federal law - i.e., the right for a law enforcement office to ask for proof of immigration status as a follow up to any investigation has been available to all states since the 80's (I believe Viper1st already posted this info).
So - the law was not needed - Arizona simply needs to enforce existing federal law, rather than create new state laws that say the same thing. It was arrogant, hateful, and a waste of tax payer's money to do so. And when I say tax payer's, I mean both Arizona AND Federal - since it is now being challenged in the Supreme Court.
It would be hard to claim it sets immigration policy since it mirrors the federal law, a fact you indirectly admit to in your comment. As a matter of law it is not unconstitutional for a state to enact a law discouraging illegal immigration provided Congress hasn't expressly preempted it (which they haven't) and the state law doesn't conflict with the federal law. If you believe it conflicts with federal law please cite the section.
You essentially undermined your entire argument when you claim the law wasn't needed because it already exists at the federal level. If that's true then its constitutional. If Arizona wants to pass a redundant law that is up to them, that doesn't effect its constitutionality. Further, as a practical matter it wasn't redundant since the Feds often weren't prosecuting existing law. Since the law is essentially the same as the federal law I don't know how you conclude its hateful. You might like to cite a passage or explain how its "hateful"
Voters show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a Voter's ID card. After that, the show their Voter's ID card in order to vote. There's no disconnect there.
Where the disconnect comes in is when the Voter is asked for ADDITIONAL proof of citizenship or ID above and beyond their Voter's ID card in order to vote. That's something that can be mis-used in order to deny the right to vote to people who are eligible, but who may not have other ID on them at the time.
I worked at a polling center during the last presidential election. ANYONE who wanted to vote, and who had a Voter's ID card, was allowed to cast a provisional ballot - even if the Voter's ID card was expired or otherwise questionable. Those provisional ballots were then provided to the central voting office, who used various means to validate the ID - and if valid, the vote was accepted. NOBODY was turned away who had a Voter's ID card.
So - how would a Voter I.D. law make that process any better? Requiring additional ID would actually make it worse - since those who filed provisional ballots would have been TURNED AWAY.
Your argument is rather poorly supported... please try again.
According to the FBI a total of 1,382,012 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2008. And there were 9,767,915 property crimes in the Nation that year. Thus, a total of 11,149,927 crimes were committed 2008. During that year the Pew Center estimated there were 11,900,000 people illegally living in the USA.
For each person illegally living in the USA there is at least one violation of the law taking place. In our law crossing our border illegally is a violation of Criminal Law. Overstaying a visa is a violation of Civil Law. Read Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And more violations of the law are taking place if you count Identity Fraud, Identity Theft, and other crimes people living illegally in the USA commit in order to work. Most of these crimes, which are violations of criminal law, currently go unprosecuted. Thus the number of people violating our law to live and work illegally in the USA in 2008 was greater than all violent and property crimes in the USA that year combined.
SEIU = Most Unscrupulous U.S. Labor Union taking poor exploited illegal's $30/mo Union Dues.
Imagine, on USA Soil ~ a U.S. Labor union, recruiting illegals, unauthorized to work in the USA, as members, for their almighty dues paying capabilities.
All the while ~ 13 million U.S. Citizens are out of work in the USA for the past consecutive 40 months.
All the while ~ SEIU is SCABBING the U.S. Citizens ability to earn a living supporting their children, while supporting 11.2 million illegals, unauthorized to work in the USA.
The
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsScws6xUc
And from this, you take jumps such as "a U.S. labor union, recruiting illegals"... to make it sound like they are actively recruiting illegals. You obviously have no agenda.
Here's a tip - if you want to sway intelligent minds - you might want to lay off the sensationalism a bit and simply present the facts as you see them. Obviously the youtube video you reference was edited for a specific agenda of making either a) unions, b) Mr. Medina, or c) SEIU look bad.
Yeah, THAT'S why. So when states pass PRO-illegal immigration laws you're right there suing because you're so concerned about pre-emption doctrine. Oh, wait, you don't? So spare us the constitutional sanctimony, SEIU. You're about what you think increases the power of your controversial union, nothing more.