Arizona Immigration Bill is Unconstitutional

Source

It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.

The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.

Manheim said the Obama Administration, which is in the midst of trying to pass a federal immigration reform law, would likely rely on private litigants to challenge the controversial Arizona law. Challenging the law directly “might create a political conflict” for the administration, he said.

If private litigants sue Arizona over the new law, the Justice Department also could file a so-called friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, he said.

I agree that the bill is indeed DOA. It's the economy of it. The bill prevents US businesses to gain access to cheap labor. And in the end, I believe everyone will be too squeamish to continue supporting the bill, including the very legislators who made this happen in the first place.


Related news: Arizona immigration bill: Mayor Gordon says Phoenix may sue

Michael Nowakowski, the council's lone Hispanic, said he's concerned the law could expose the city to costly racial-profiling lawsuits at a time it's already struggling with massive budget cuts.

He said authorities should enforce the law uniformly by asking every person stopped by police for proof of citizenship. Nowakowski, a Democrat, also wants President Obama to intervene, though it's unclear what powers he has over state law.

As a "last resort," the councilman would support legal action against the state.

"If it comes to a vote," Nowakowski said, "I will vote to challenge the law to protect our residents and our tax dollars."

The state challenges federal power, then the city challenges the state's power. Ironic isn't it?

It's too bad the States do not have any representation in the Senate.

I'd tend to agree that State immigration laws, from my personal understanding, tend to overstep their position. This is, for once, actually one of the jobs of the Federal Government, and I say that almost NEVER!

We need practical solutions, yet we have two sides. One that says "SEND EM ALL BACK, DAMN THE COST", which is stupid, and the other that wants to just pass out another failed amnesty to increase voters of their party.

Sad since neither side has anything practical or worthwhile to say.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It's too bad the States do not have any representation in the Senate.

I'd tend to agree that State immigration laws, from my personal understanding, tend to overstep their position. This is, for once, actually one of the jobs of the Federal Government, and I say that almost NEVER!

We need practical solutions, yet we have two sides. One that says "SEND EM ALL BACK, DAMN THE COST", which is stupid, and the other that wants to just pass out another failed amnesty to increase voters of their party.

Sad since neither side has anything practical or worthwhile to say.

What do you mean 'the states' don't have representation in the senate??!! Small-populated states w/ backwards views are WAY over-represented in the senate (Idaho and Utah have the same number of Senators as California and New York, for god's sake). It's just a matter of numerical fact.

This bill is authoritarian and will be thrown out in the ARIZONA high court, as it violates ARIZONA'S constitution.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/24/2010 by skunknuts]

What Constitution?

second line.

Originally posted by dgtempe
What Constitution?

second line.

Arizona's

Best,
SN

According to whose interpretation?

Many of the self proclaimed constitutional experts on this site claim its legal.

reply to post by skunknuts


This is what I mean.

Originally posted by jam321
According to whose interpretation?

Many of the self proclaimed constitutional experts on this site claim its legal.

Because they don't understand the 4th amendment.

BTW, I'm not responding to you personally because I know that you are against this bill. I just think its funny that so many who seem to be 'pro-constitution to the bitter end' are happy that AZ has decided to ignore one of the amendments in order to enforce racial discrimination within its borders.

The very same people that would be bent over backwards #ting themselves if AZ decided to repeal the right to bear arms.

All amendments are created equal. The Constitution is not a document to pick and choose parts out of. You either support all of it or none of it.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It's too bad the States do not have any representation in the Senate.

What? Do you know how the Senate works?

Each state gets two representatives. The Senate is quite literally the equal representation of states in the federal government.

Is our public school system that bad?

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by dgtempe
What Constitution?

Arizona's

Oh, u mean the same one that Washington
shredded years ago ??? When the Feds
overthrew states authority???

it is an attack on rights garenteed be the constitution-a constant chipping away at human rights
i hope the mexes riot loot and burn before it spreads state to state

reply to post by Jazzyguy


The language of this bill CLEARLY diiferentiates federal,state and local authorities. Nobody is stepping on anyone else's toes here.

This bill does NOT differentiate nationalities when it is talking about illegal immigrants. If Arizona suddenly had an influx of immigrants entering this country illegaly from Indonesia via Mexico, we would concentrate on them also.

Remember,your source is an economically biased [WSJ] blog, which is an opinion.

My source is the bill itself.

My advice to you. Read the bill.



Peace

Originally posted by drwizardphd
What? Do you know how the Senate works?

Each state gets two representatives. The Senate is quite literally the equal representation of states in the federal government.

Is our public school system that bad?

I'm well acquainted with how the Senate works, thanks. Since my explanation came a mere 4 minutes before your post I'll cut you slack in that you didn't see it.

Check my post directly above yours.

Don't confuse the people with the State. They are not the same thing by a long shot, and their interests/problems are and aren't the same.

The STATE needs it representation back. The people already have the House.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


The law will stand. This is not an immigration bill/law. This bill is an extension of the protocols used by local law enforcement, no different than directing, for example the traffic police to go down-town and arrest whores on the corner, work that historically was handled by the vice squad.

Arizona has every right to enforce its laws and has every right to enforce federal law as well. Should the federal authorities choose not to deal with this issue, Arizona can place them into tent prisons until the feds take them out of Arizona or the Mexican government takes them back. The can also leave them there indefinately. The legal cases are pretty cut and dry. Let LaRaza pay for the legal fees, maybe a good thing would happen and they'd go broke.

How is this any different than a counterfeiter or the violator of any other federal law? Local law enforcement arrests, say a bank robber who has, by virtue of committing a bank robbery committed a federal crime. Local enforcement holds the person until the feds come and get him. How is this different?

Should the feds decide not to do anything here, Arizona should immediately release any person arrested for a federal offense, regardless of the crime. Open up the jails and just let them all go. They should also withdraw any and all support they provide to federal law enforcement, including federal prisons.

This is a law enforcement issue, not an immigration issue. People flowing across the border are not immigrants. They are criminals by definition. Either change the law and eliminate the border or enforce the law.

For all of those folks who suggest that "Americans" won't do those jobs,

1. Who did them before the Mexicans were coming over here?
2. Do you really think that should we liberalize the immigration laws and include a path to citizenship the Mexicans that they will work for the same rates? They of course demand the same salary/wage as a non-Mexican.
3. Ever been to Hawaii? There are no (or very, very few) Mexicans in Hawaii. Who does the labor? Everyone. Lawn crews have Whites, Blacks, Native Hawaiians. The same is the case for all trades and labor. American's will do the work the Mexican's are doing.

If you don't think that Mexican's are taking the jobs of American's chat with one of the 1000s of folks who ran their own businesses laying bricks, drywall, roofs who are now under water because they have been undercut by Mexican labor. Think about the American kid of average intelligence who 20 years could have supported himself with a job doing labor who now can't find work. There are a lot of American kids in jail today because they could not find work and turned to drugs, crime and other non-productive lifestyles.

It cracks me up that many of the same folks who rail against outsourcing are pro-illegal immigration. It would be fantastic were the Mexicans to get into the service business like running off-shore call centers and the like. Then you folks will have a real internal conflict.

Originally posted by itsawild1
it is an attack on rights garenteed be the constitution-a constant chipping away at human rights
i hope the mexes riot loot and burn before it spreads state to state

Last I heard those rights in the constitution were for U.S. citizens or people who are here legally.

I hope every state in the union passes similar laws.

You should go try and sneak into most any other country in the world illegally and see how many ventilation holes you end up with in your posterior.

Its called enforcing the law and the Federal government has not been doing it for a long time.

Read my lips, political game for political gain amid of the mid term elections.

While our nation is falling into chaos and disintegrating from no only within as a dying superpower and Empire our corrupted, dumb fat rats in government are working themselves into a frenzy for votes coming Congress elections.

America is been played as usual and while we are been divided about stupid issues and false remedies we are heading down like the titanic.

The state of "Arizona" representatives knew what they were doing, when they pass this immigration bill, but as usual the population and tax payer has been played like the puppets they are while the politicians are laughing their way all through election day.

We the tax payer and citizens of this nation are nothing but slaves to the system, to illegal immigrants rights (because they have more rights than we voters do), to the financial system and banking institutions and to the federal government.

What we do, we just keep bending over and taking it. . . while electing more trash to keep helping bring our nation to the ground.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by marg6043]

Anyone who believes this to be constitutional is painting their interpretation with a much broader brush than they could ever legitimately accuse democrats of.

..........

The Federal government has 13 enumerated powers.

Let us take a look at one of their responsibilities-

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well, it seems several States have called for help in the past 20 years to help repel invasion of illegal aliens.

What was their answer? Frell off.

Now people are going to WHINE about a State doing something to protect themselves?

As for Constitutional, how can a state law, passed to enforce a federal law, be un Consitutional?

Now let us look and see, since the federal government DID NOT fulfill their responsibility to defend the border and repel invasion, they have broken their covenant.

I say it is about time to recall all National Guard troops and call for complete secession from the Union.

If the Federal government even tries to stop this enforcement, watch what happens. And then watch what happens if the Federal government TRIES to pass amnesty.

Originally posted by endisnighe
As for Constitutional, how can a state law, passed to enforce a federal law, be un Consitutional?

It's not the enforcing of the federal law that is unconstitutional. It's their method of enforcing it that is unconstitutional.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One can argue that illegals have no constitutional rights...and they would be 100% correct. However, the very first American citizen that is subjected to scrutiny under this law will have had their 4th Amendment right violated.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by endisnighe


If this law is to be repeal is going to be after mid term elections, things are to volatile right now and the Federal government doesn't have a very favored view from the citizens at all.

The only thing I know is that is a war going on for congress right now and the players are dirty resourceful and very much deceiving.

But then again you know about all this.

reply to post by skunknuts

This bill is authoritarian and will be thrown out in the ARIZONA high court, as it violates ARIZONA'S constitution.

I have looked over SB1070, and I saw nothing that appeared to violate any Constitutional requirements, either US or Arizona. Can you explain what section of SB1070 violates what section of the Arizona Constitution?

Or do you contend it violates the US Constitution?

TheRedneck