It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Several civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to halt a controversial new Arizona law that requires local police to enforce federal immigration regulations.
The lawsuit is at least the fourth filed since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer last month signed the law, which makes it a state crime to lack immigration paperwork in Arizona and requires police to determine the status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The federal class-action claim contends that the law will lead to widespread racial profiling, infringes on the federal government's ability to set immigration policy and violates the Constitution's 1st and 4th amendments.
The individual plaintiffs include a 70-year-old U.S. citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who says he's been stopped twice by Arizona police asking for "papers"; a Latino citizen studying at Arizona State University whose New Mexico driver's license would not be accepted as proof of citizenship under the law; and a Jamaican immigrant who fears police will not believe the photocopy of a judge's order that he be allowed to stay in the country, the only paperwork he has that gives him legal status here.
SB 1070 is unconstitutional. It violates the Supremacy Clause and core civil rights and civil liberties secured by the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expressive activity, the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Before accusing ACLU of not reading the law (which I find highly unlikely considering part of the civil process is identifying how a law violates constitutional rights) read the complaint.
Originally posted by OldDragger
The issue is if the law is Unconstitutional, not how polular it is.
Remember The Constitution? The one ATS members claim to love and honor?
I think this law is very poorly written, and will be found Unconstitutional.
Maybe following existing Federal law would be better.
Guys, Constitutional rights are NEVER a polularity contest, NEVER up for a vote. The majority does not over ride the constitution or decide your rights.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting here.
This Law isn't unconstitutional, just because an activist organization claims it is unconstitutional does not mean it is.
The laws that are unconstitutional are the HCR bill and the many other policies being forced through no the Arizona bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by prionace glauca
reply to post by OldDragger
Oh you mean in your Bush bashing thread. I thought I made it clear in there, since you are devoid of the facts as to who was passing the bills of corruption, i.e. the Democratic Congress in power when bush was president as they are now, I felt I shall humor myself.
The individual plaintiffs include a 70-year-old U.S. citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who says he's been stopped twice by Arizona police asking for "papers"; a Latino citizen studying at Arizona State University whose New Mexico driver's license would not be accepted as proof of citizenship under the law; and a Jamaican immigrant who fears police will not believe the photocopy of a judge's order that he be allowed to stay in the country, the only paperwork he has that gives him legal status here