Why do Liberals who are against the Arizona law think "concurrent enforcement" is unconstitutional?

Question

Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who handled immigration law and border security under U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft during the Bush administration, said the law does not seek to regulate immigration but merely adds state penalties for what are already federal crimes.

Under the legal doctrine of "concurrent enforcement," he said, states are allowed to ban what is already prohibited by federal law. As an example, he said, the courts have upheld efforts by Arizona, California and other states to enact sanctions against employers who hire illegal migrants.

Answer 1

Tribeca_belle, you contend that immigration is solely a federal issue, but that is just not correct. In 1996 Clinton signed a bill that allows states to take on immigration enforcement. It's called "Acceptance of State Services to Carry Out Immigration Enforcement." It says



"...the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers)"



Now I know what you're saying. I said it too. "But does Arizona have that written agreement?" Turns out they don't need it. Congress wrote this guy, "8 USC 1357 - Sec. 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees" which says:



"(10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State - (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."



You contend that immigration is a federal function, but power to enforce immigration has clearly been given to the State and local law enforcement.



As to your critique of the vague language that will allow for racial profiling, HB2162 literally says "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." It is literally impossible for this law to be legally carried out using racial profiling. If it is, the officer has committed a crime.



And I have to say, I disagree with you here:

"Terms such as 'lawful contact' and 'reasonable suspicion' to believe that someone is in the country illegally are undefined in that law. I sincerely doubt that the Arizona police have a clue as to how to proceed under this law."



Reasonable suspicion is actually defined:

"A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification."

Those conditions give the officer "reasonable suspicion" to check the immigration status.



And lawful contact? Honestly? You think that term is vague and people who are paid to enforce the law do not know what it is? Come on, don't be stupid. And don't forget, this law is somewhat reactionary. The cop must stop a person for committing some other violation/infraction. Immigration can not be the primary reason for a stop. That is your "legal contact," something like a speeding violation.



As for citizens being victimized, Kris Kobach says "...the law does not require them to carry any identification whatsoever. Indeed, the law cannot possibly be applied against U.S. citizens; only an alien can be found guilty under the Arizona statute." From that, it sounds like citizens are pretty safe. And if an illegal lies and says they're a citizen, I hope they don't get caught in that lie because I heard that's a REALLY big no-no.



And let's not forget that immigrants are required to carry immigration papers with them. This policy has been around since 1940 and it's the reason the pro-illegal crowd begs the public to use the euphemism "undocumented immigrant" rather than "illegal immigrant."



But in all honestly, this is how the law is designed to play out. Someone is caught violating a law. Since citizens are not required to carry ID, they only need to provide a name and address that the cop can check in their system. If the person has no "papers" the cop will also check with immigration. If they're citizens, they'll check out. If not, well...



So far, I haven't actually seen the opponents to SB1070/HB2162 properly deconstruct how the law is unconstitutional or how it violates civil rights. I've only heard proponents of the law actually support their position. I'm a registered democrat, so please, give me a reason to stand with my side. So far, I see no reason to...

Answer 2

Concurrent enforcement is not necessarily per se unconstitutional but when a state decides to take on an area that is regulated by the federal government it cannot pass laws such as the one Arizona did.



First, immigration is clearly a federal function. A state may not superimpose its own immigration enforcement regime if it decides that federal law isn’t harsh enough. That is without precedent and without basis.



Next, the vague terms used in the Arizona law as they apply to police officers are unenforceable and promote discrimination. Terms such as "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" to believe that someone is in the country illegally are undefined in that law. I sincerely doubt that the Arizona police have a clue as to how to proceed under this law. There is no doubt that racial profiling would be employed by the police. This is harmful to civil liberties of the residents of Arizona and any visitors. It also implies that US citizens will have to be able to prove citizenship at all times. That is bizarre and an infringement on the rights of us all.

Answer 3

Liberals who are against the Arizona law think "concurrent enforcement" is unconstitutional because ellos no comprenden que es necessario por nosotro sustantivo, seguridad y nos están cobrando demasiado en impuestos porque de los ilegales. So if you libs don't like the law you're invited to LEAVE.

Answer 4

Because they don't want to lose their newest block of voters. Obama said that we need to follow the rule of law, but when it interferes with his newest constituents he wants to go to court to stop them from being forced to leave the country. Like the way the law was ignored when GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy the investors that according to the law were to be in front were forced to the back and the Unions that were according to the bankruptcy laws are to be in the back of the line were moved to the front. Obama only follows the law when it is to his benefit and especially a benefit to his constituents so that they will vote for him in 2012.

Answer 5

They do not understand what they read, or just flat don't read. To avoid confusion I have pasted below a very large section of the AZ law. You will find two major things. First the officer has to have ALREADY made "LAWFUL CONTACT" meaning he cannot stop a person for suspicion of being illegal, he has to have stopped the person for commission of another crime.Second, ANYONE with a VALID Driver's license is automatically OFF the hook for being here illegally. Everyone that is here legally should have a valid ID anyway. How is any of that racial profiling? Add to that, anytime you get pulled over the cop is going to ask for your DL and then go back to his car and run your report anyway. The only thing new is they can check citizenship along with outstanding warrants.

Answer 6

Enacting sanctions against employers who hire illegal migrants is great. Making it possible for American citizens to be harassed and made to produce papers because of their ethnicity goes against the fourth amendment.

Answer 7

Because, like the libidiots who've already commented here, they're idiots. They twist and skew the facts, if a simple lie won't work. The difference between older libidiots and young libidiots is, at least the older libidiots would do some research on issues, whereas, the younger libidiots will hear a lie, accept it as fact, and spread it like they spread STD's.

Answer 8

youre right. so whats the point in passing it? based on what you are saying, arizona is only magnifying what already exists. the legislation does absolutely nothing but direct illegal immigration traffic elsewhere.

Answer 9

They are either misinformed, or believe that misinforming others is defensible.



This law is quite clearly constitutional and neither implicates the supremacy clause, the 4 amendment, or any of the other arguments I have heard.

Answer 10

That's not what it is, as you can see the federal government have trouble enforcing the law due to avoidance of racial profiling. Arizona says well if they don't racially profile we will...

Answer 11

http://postpartumillness.com/?q=node/272

Answer 12

If Wealthy Republicans ( who are people who tend to vote Republican ) did not hire illegals for cheap slave labor they would have NO reason to come here .

Answer 13

ah, let's go to a former Bush official for an "un-bias" opinion... lol



they thought torture was legal? lol



are you trying to destroy your own point... or just accidentally doing it?

Answer 14

I'm a liberal who supports the Arizona law.