Friday, April 23, 2010

AZ joins the Third Reich

Presumably yellow (or maybe "brown") stars are not far behind:

Dear Governor Brewer:

I am shocked and appalled that you should have signed into law SB1070. The potential for egregious, arbitrary, inconsistent halt-and-questioning of people on the street violates the spirit of the protection against unjustifiable search and seizure. More to the point, the law itself, its intentions, its likely execution, and your own official ratification of it, are deeply, deeply un-American. I will never spend another dime on or in Arizona, I will urge all friends, relations, colleagues, and business associates to likewise boycott the state, and I will actively seek to bring about your defeat in the next election, unless and until this law if repealed.

You should be ashamed of this action. Please act to rescind.

Sincerely,

Dr Coyote


6 comments:

Shannon said...

The statute provides that law enforcement officials must have a reasonable belief that a person is in violation of some other law (other than the provisions in 1070) in order to detain them. "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official...." If, after reasonable detainment, there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of Federal Immigration law. The provision about not restricting the State government from transmitting information about immigration status is in accord with enforcing Federal Law as well. The main purpose of 1070 is to prohibit municipalities and counties from inhibiting the enforcement of the laws already enacted by the United States, specifically in section 8 of the U.S. code.

So, facially, the statute is not discriminatory, does not contradict or violate the 4th amendment, and is a tool merely to prevent enforcement of already enacted Federal Law. Article 1 section 8 gives the Congress all power to regulate immigration and naturalization, so limiting of this power by the States would in nearly every case be unconstitutional anyway.

In enforcement, the statute could potentially create a discriminatory impact or increase the enforcement of minor traffic laws. If this is the result, the systems in place to check the legislature (the court's treatment of such matters with "strict scrutiny" (which rarely lets the state win) and the political process) will refresh its enforcement in some manner.

Shannon said...

To be clear, I wasn't attacking your view of the statute, just explaining what I think it means and how, if its impact is negative, it will be addressed.

I believe your letter to Governor Brewer would fall under the "political process" system of checking.

Shannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1hose韻如ak09r_cruickshan said...

廢話不多,祝你順心~^^........................................

DexterSeibe2178 said...

Care killed the cat. take care yourself.........................................

勝傑懿綺 said...

Cheek brings success.........................................