Leo News City

Sb1070 Is Constitutional

If I oppose ONE unconstitutional, racist and counterproductive immigration law (Arizona’s SB1070)?

Why do some people think it means that I oppose ALL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT? Are people on here just lumping opposers into a whole new category that isn’t real?

Arizona’s new immigration law is unconstitutional

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/26/is_arizona_immigration_law_constitutional

Arizona’s Vicious New Anti-Immigrant Law Isn’t Just Racist; It’s Unconstitutional and Counterproductive

http://qwstnevrythg.com/2010/04/arizonas-vicious-new-anti-im/

Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 is not unconstitutional. Arguements that it is are brought to bear by people who have obviously not read it. People such as Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder.

Argument 1: “It violates the 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.” This is simply a straw dog argument. Asking for identification in the course of being pulled over for a burned out headlight, for instance, is hardly unreasonable. The bill states that officers may attempt to determine the immigration status of anyone with whom the officer comes in lawful contact, it doesn’t promote racial profiling.

Argument 2: “It violates Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution which states the Senate has the power to: “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” How does SB 1070 do this, exactly? It doesn’t. SB 1070 is simply concurrent enforcement of Title 8 of the US Code, which makes it a federal felony to enter the US illegally. Incidentally, concurrent enforcement of federal law at a state level has been in effect since the ratification of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996. Additionally, any individual apprehended who is found to be illegal is turned over to ICE for disposition.

Argument 3: “It violates the Supremacy Clause, or Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, which states “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.” In effect, this means that a state law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of two conditions exists: Compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” How does SB 1070 do this when it is in effect an almost verbatim restatement of Federal law? How does it do this when such concurrent enforcement has already been approved by federal law?

I’m glad you don’t oppose all enforcement, but check your facts with reputable sources before making such a conclusion about a valuable, and long overdue, tool as AZ SB 1070.

Share on Facebook