DOJ: Arizona Immigration Law Must Be 'Struck Down'

No. The states are to aphrend illegals and turn them over the ICE. Only the Federal government can expel illegals from American soil.

Arizona's law does not attempt to usurp federal responsbilities. It is simply a means of combatting illegal immigration and puts the safety of Americans ahead of the interests of the illegals which is what they should do.

 

"Immigration is an area the U.S. constitution gives to the federal government. See Article I, Section 8:"

So what, we are not speaking of immigration but of law breakers illegally in the country. Kick them out and let the Feds deal with their legal entry.:laugh:

 

Which brings up the question: Who should have filed a lawsuit? The U.S. against Arizona, or Arizona against the U.S. (for not doing its job)?

 

No one said shove it aside. so your accusation is false. Of course you ignore that fact that Americans are being slaughtered. And quite flippantly. And you have not proven that the Arizona is unconstitutional.

 

Did this "slaughter," as you call it, start in January of 2009

 

No one said it did. And if you were to go back through my posts you will see equal criticism of Bush on the illegal immigration issue during his term. But Bush did not sue Arizona did he?

 

Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it none of us will know whether it is constitutional for sure or not. I and others think it is unconstitutional and some folks think it is constitutional. We'll eventually find out who is correct when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it.

 

Uh...no. Not going to give you a pass on this one. You charged that conservatives are willing to ignore the constitution. The implication was that it is decided and conservatives know it and now they want to ignore what they know. Your former statement and this one do not jive.

 

Arizona hasn't ignored the US Constitution by the laws it has enacted. It has not enacted laws against illegal immigration nor does it intend to prosecute people for it. It simply has decided to help close the gap that the federal government - our servant and theirs - has not. It has decided to turn over to the US Border Patrol any one it has reasonable cause to believe is an illegal alien that is stopped for some infraction of State or local law. This is contrary to those States and local government that have chosen to opposite course which is to provide blatant sanctuary for illegal aliens. This - detain and hand over - is a common and long accepted practice among many law enforcement agencies that is a force multiplier. Even the federal government does this for the States in areas of concurrent jurisdiction. Even ICE has a partnership program to utilize State and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law - even with several law enforcement agencies in Arizona! There is no constitutional prohibition against such cooperation. The problem here is that the current administration does not want the cooperation because it points out their failure to deal with the problem and it treads on their sensitive pride as pompous and incompetent bureaucrats. The law suit is a complete waste of tax payer money and time and address no constitutional issue whatsoever although that's certainly the tact being taken. I hope the the the DOJ's case is soundly defeated and they suffer rebuke for such silliness.

 

Apparently some libertarians don't understand the Constitution very well and will likely switch sides on it with the same fickleness as they do their support for political candidates.

 

Well stated.

 

I disagree, the Arizona law does violate the Constitution. It applies "reasonable suspicions" instead of "probable cause" as reason for a search. If they would change the phrase in their law to reflect the Constitution, I would support the law. However, as written, the language, in my opinion, is in violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution. I am all for them enforcing citizenship requirements as a legal entity. I am against them enforcing law at a lower standard than the bar set by the Constitution.

 

Some argue technicalities - sometimes important but most often trivial and meaningless and merely opportunities to avoid the truth. Others argue principles - always important and superior to technicalities.

It is clear, in this case, that "reasonable suspicions" leads to "probable cause" it shouldn't be of any concern. This is an established law enforcement principle - not something invented by Arizona to circumvent the Constitution as some suggest. It is also clear that Arizona's law only permits law enforcement to handover to the federal government someone they reasonably suspect to be an illegal alien and that they encounter in the course of their routine law enforcement work. The criteria is essentially no different than that used by federal law enforcement officers to determine reasonable suspicions or probable cause! There's nothing wrong with that "principle" and, for that matter, neither the "technicalities".

Even the DOJ's stupid lawsuit doesn't clearly claim a violation of the 4th amendment. Most of it just makes excuses for the federal government's selective non-enforcement of immigration law and implies that Arizona is somehow in violation of federal supremacy, preempting federal law, and, just to throw in the kitchen sink, restricting interstate commerce. All of these are false claims!

It's a shameful act by the Obama administration that seeks to gain favor with the supporters of illegal immigration. It has nothing at all to do with the 4th amendment. If it did, you can bet that would be the main stanzas of the DOJ's whining 25 page song.

 

>It applies "reasonable suspicions" instead of "probable cause" as reason for a search.

EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! Everyone except obviously white people could be under reasonable suspicion. Many Europeans and Asians over stay student visas and whatever but they would never be "suspicious."

 

Yes, the national law is also based upon reasonable suspicion. I criticized the Bush Administration for supporting this unconstitutional clause.

As well, according to the constitution, only probable cause is valid. Not reasonable suspicion leading to probable cause. I should not be searched at all or questioned at all because you have reasonable suspicion. I should only be searched with probable cause. That is my right as a citizen. Show me anywhere in the Constitution reasonable suspicion. It is not there.

If you read my previous post, I am against both the lawsuit and this law. Obama's lawsuit is wrong. The law is wrong. My fear is that people hate illegal immigration on one side that they willfully violate our Constitution. I think people on the other side are so overly sensitive that they do not want to handle the issue of illegal immigration. Both are wrong.

Insofar as I see it, unless you have probable cause you are violating the Constitution of the United States. For that reason, I oppose the law in Arizona. Conservatives are afraid to change the language to probable cause because of their blind dislike for immigration. The other side is too blind to states having autonomy to care about those rights, too. Both are blind.

 

I'm glad you're against the lawsuit but sorry that you're also against the law. This thread, of course, is more about the lawsuit than the law so that's the main perspective of my comments.

Reasonable suspicion - not just a "hunch" - is a principle of law under which a law enforcement officer can investigate further. It may lead to probable cause for an arrest or to an immediate release if there is no probable cause. All of this is covered by by the so-called "Terry Stop" case. The Arizona law is completely Constitutional and follows all the proper principles. The DOJ lawsuit doesn't challenge this point so that's not the basis of it.

When people scream "4th amendment violation" around this lawsuit they are, whether intentionally or not, giving the uninformed the idea that this is what the DOJ lawsuit is about. It's not and it's important that people know the truth.

 

No it does not! It requires "reasonable suspicions" to investigate further to determine "probable cause" - or not - just as in any normal law enforcement approach.

 

It took the DOJ 25 pages to present its case against Arizona's 17 pages of law and only some of that was specific to the matters at hand! You really should read them both. Don't be like Attorney General Holder!

 

Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).