Could one of you who is against the AZ law please stretch, take a deep breath, & calmly explain your position?

Question

Yes, we probably disagree on this subject. That being said, I am legitimately interested in what you guys have to say, if you can say it like adults.

Of course, anyone is free to answer this question, but be aware that any accusation of ignorance of the Constitution in general and the Fourth Amendment in particular is itself ignorant. There are any number of legal minds of each side of the issue, and no one position is sacrosanct until SCOTUS makes it so. Further, any blanket vitriol thrown at pro-immigration control people by way of calling them fascists, racists, xenophobes, etc...will simply reflect on the person making such a charge in the absence of actual documentation. Doing so calls to mind the old lawyer's maxim, "If the law supports my client's position I argue the law. If not, I argue the facts. If the facts don't support my client's position, I just attack the opposition."

That being said, I really do want to hear a reasoned argument against the law.

Answer 1

There are several layers to the 4th Amendment issues, and while you may not believe them to be sacrosanct until SCOTUS says so, remember that when SCOTUS says so it means that those who were in favor of the struck down law, before the ruling were in error all along. That means when they struck down separate but equal because it was inherently unequal, they were saying that anyone who opposed segregation was a racist, and will always be a racist because of that fundamental belief.



But the 4th Amendment issues aside, there is also a Supremacy (Article VI, Clause 2) issue here. The federal government is the supreme law of the land, and a state may not enact laws that usurp the authority of the federal government. Congress has made it abundantly clear that immigration is under the purview of their authority and any state law which attempts to replaced federal law is unconstitutional. Immigration is under the sole authority of Congress and any State law meant to usurp that authority is unconstitutional. Period.



There is another issue concerning the implementation of the AZ law that tends to negate the victim's side of any crime. A simple hypothetical: a domestic violence call becomes a "he said:she said" situation. Technically the police have two suspects until they sort out the mess. In the meantime they are required to do an unconstitutional citizenship check (as explained above) and thus exposing the true victim of a crime to deportation when they have done nothing to warrant having their citizenship called into question. As a result the victims of domestic violence will NOT want to call in the crime for fear of the new law, otherwise they will suffer the double punishment of being a victim of domestic violence, and victim to an oppressive government action in the form of this law. Thus the new law will have a chilling effect on the reporting of crime within the immigrant community, which is technically a secondary (or de jure) denying of the victim's civil rights.



These issues will also be argued, along with the 4th Amendment, in the constitutional challenges to this invalid law.

Answer 2

Short version: The spirit of the law is wrong. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do and hurts privacy.



Long version: The problem the law is supposed to address is being able to deal with illegal aliens in real time. The spirit of the law, is that a cop should be able to arrest an illegal alien before the alien is able to escape custody, and the alien shouldn't be left off on a technicality.



Forcing people to carry and show ID at all times is wrong. There are privacy and anonymity problems. A good "what if" is someone seeing an officer "on the take" and pocketing cocaine from a crime scene, and the officer decides he has reasonable suspicion and forces the witness to give the cop his ID. And with that ID, his address and all sorts of information the witness probably doesn't want the cop to have.



Aside from crime witnesses and whistleblowers, there are many, many other reasons why we have privacy and anonymity protections in this country. There are good arguments for not creating a national ID. By requiring people to have ID by law, the Arizona law runs into that debate.



And for all that, asking a potential criminal for an ID doesn't even address the original problem. If you are asking an alien for an ID, what you aren't doing is running his social security number. You're making it easier to commit a crime and enter the country illegally with a fake ID.



If you were running the number or in any way checking the validity of the ID- you wouldn't need the ID. Cops and the Federal Government keep records. They created a whole office, Homeland Security, that is supposed to do nothing but help executive branch police forces talk to each other. That's what Homeland Security is, the department of inter office communication.

Answer 3

I am for the Law. I can see what the UN-EDUCATED or UN-INFORMED are harping about. The law came about in response to help LEO's curtail a problem of illegal immigrants and the problems they bring such as the murder of the rancher. Racial Profiling is in everyone. Not EVERYONE acts on it though. If a black person comes through a predominant rich white neighborhood everyone notices it. They are saying it is racial profiling. It will make all the LEO's start harassing the hispanic population. So first people need to realize that illegal immigrants are criminals. THEY BROKE THE LAW GETTING HERE. As a Criminal they are due the rights of fair treatment but they are CRIMINALS. Second name one country in this world that doesn't require ID. We have State issued ID's for driving and identification to get jobs, loans and everything else. It is there to prove you are who you say you are. If you travel to Mexico, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Russia, or WHEREEVER you better believe you better have your passport or you might have trouble. I have travelled the world. I have been stopped by the police in the countries i visited and when they see my passport and make sure I am not doing anything wrong I am allowed to be on my way. These IDIOTS that are harping it is a violation of this or that are complete MORONS. It is not a violation. LEO's do checks to make sure you are not a fugitive or suspect in a crimine. Some places arrest for unpaid fines. With the economy now what it is many agencies are starting to arrest for old fines. They figure you will either pay money or time in jail and risk losing jobs or homes. The problem with illegals comes that they can say they are whoever they want and short of a fingerprint match no one will ever know the difference.

Example in point. American Citizen commits a traffic violation gets a traffic citation. Citizen pays fine to avoid jail time, suspension of license.

Illegal commits same violation doesnt pay fine doesnt care cause police wont come after him or her.

# 2 You are driving on the road and are DUI and are involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident. You get arrested and your insurance pays for the damage(though they make drop coverage). You bond out of jail and go home and wait for the trial.

The Illegal however does the same DUI MVA(motor Vehicle Accident) and moves on and not cares cause his information is not known and no way to track him.

People need to get off the HUMANITARIAN Band Wagon and realize illegals for what they are: CRIMINALS. IT is not a violation of anyone's rights but allowing the state to work more efficiently and not wait on the laziness of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE or AGENCY.

Answer 4

I'm against it because it violates individual privacy, something the Constitution guarantees us.



Also this will undoubtedly effect countless citizens, especially Latinos due to profiling.



What amazes me is that so many people who claim to be for "limited government" support this legislation. The power of the Arizonian government just increased significantly and now they have the power to infringe on anyones personal liberty regardless of the cause, and they actually except the fat *** bureaucrats there NOT abuse this power? I find it very ironic.



Secondly I oppose the bill because it isn't in the states power to pursue illegal immigration matters, it's up to the federal government. Yes I understand they are frustrated with all the illegals there, but giving their local government the power to overstep the Constitution is not going to solve the problem -- it will only make it worse for actual citizens.



What they need to do is vote in more competent representitives who will press the matter vigilantly in Washington, not some stupid career politician Neocon like John McCain who doesn't do squat.

Answer 5

There is a general fear of racial profiling and discrimination, and the fear from some people i have heard from in Arizona that the police may deport a legal Hispanic citizen.



There is also the fear of treating Hispanics or legal immigrants like second class citizens to be misused and abused by the police in the name of checking if a person is a legitimate American Resident or Citizen.



My mother came to the United States through legitimate means by the Spanish Consulate and fell in love and married my father, who was also the child of Spanish-American immigrants.

(Spanish, as in people who came from Spain. My mother and father are both Spaniards. I was personally born in Madrid and hold Spanish and American Citizenship)



My mother also has very very distant relatives that live in Mexico and migrated to the United States in an illegal manner, and my mom doesn't like them for it. She thinks it's despicable and immoral to cheat your way into success and comfort, instead of choosing legitimate means like school, or even work Visas. Of course, my family has some snid superiority complex when it comes to Hispanics. However, that being said , they still disapprove of the distant relatives life style choice.



I asked my mom about this when i called her, and she retorted that the region has a lot of problems with illegals like violence, drug cartels, and it is not a discriminatory thing, but a safety issue.

That being said, I think that the legislation is abusive on normal US Citizens who may be mistook as an illegal and deported. It may or may not degrade legal Hispanics in that region to further discrimination and devalue them into second class citizens.

Answer 6

Fourteenth Amendment:



Yale-Loehr’s chief criticisms of the bill focused on Constitutional law.



“The U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the federal government alone has the responsibility to enact and enforce immigration laws,” Yale-Loehr said in a statement. “In addition, the law might lead to racial profiling and possible violations of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.”

Answer 7

It is not difficult to comprehend their position.



They are alarmed by the superficial resemblance to the Nazi identity checks.



It has become an American tradition to shun any kind of mandatory identity card. When Social Security was enacted, the law specifically provided that the Social Security card could not be used for identification purposes, out of fears that it would resemble the Nazi identity checks.



So I guess the leftists will really scream when they find out what the Democrats in Congress have just proposed.



This is the BILL SUMMARY FOR ESTABLISHING A NEW KIND OF SOCIAL SECURITY CARD



YES, A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD



IT SAYS "SOCIAL SECURITY CARD" IN THE OFFICIAL BILL SUMMARY PUBLISHED BY CONGRESS:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100430/cm_huffpost/557721

National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill

"The crackdown on employers relies on the creation of national identity cards. "These cards will be fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer," reads the bill summary.



"...Democrats insist that it is not an ID card and can only be used for employment purposes. "



I am expecting the liberals to start screaming about this any second now.



You better cover your ears.

Answer 8

really? there are a number of legal minds on each side of the issue? i think you need to do a simple google search and you will find the vast, vast majority of experts in this area believe the law is unconstitutional. a professor from the prestigious UMKC is about the only one i see defending the law, probably because he wrote it.

Answer 9

Well I do feel very angry at this ridiculous antiimmigrant law.Just pay attention to who is making this law.These fake Americans(white/black) are nothing more than European descendants(white/anglosaxon) and African descendants("African Americans"/black).And since they came from IMMIGRANTS themselves,then they're contradicting themselves.Before they discriminate against any immigrant group(s),they must make it clear who they really are(immigrant descendants,which makes them instant immigrants)In FACT,we Hispanics/Latins/Native Americans have all the rights to discriminate and deport them(send them back to Europe and Africa) because unlike them,Hispanics/Latins came from Native Americans(also called Indigenous People,which are the real Americans including their descendants)So who has the right to discriminate/deport who?These white people stole and invaded our land like parasites,now is our(Latins/Hispanics) turn to get our land back.These fake Americans have no right to use,control,or sell what's not theirs!!!

Answer 10

No hable Englais