(05/17/10) "ACLU sues to stop Arizona's immigration law" (by Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times)

[Spang]

A class-action suit filed by civil rights groups argues that the measure will lead to racial profiling and violates the Constitution.

Several civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to halt a controversial new Arizona law that requires local police to enforce federal immigration regulations.

The lawsuit is at least the fourth filed since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer last month signed the law, which makes it a state crime to lack immigration paperwork in Arizona and requires police to determine the status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The federal class-action claim contends that the law will lead to widespread racial profiling, infringes on the federal government's ability to set immigration policy and violates the Constitution's 1st and 4th amendments.

"This law is shameful, un-American, it will undermine public safety and it is unconstitutional," said Lucas Guttentag, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, among the groups that filed the suit. Also named are the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

The individual plaintiffs include a 70-year-old U.S. citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who says he's been stopped twice by Arizona police asking for "papers"; a Latino citizen studying at Arizona State University whose New Mexico driver's license would not be accepted as proof of citizenship under the law; and a Jamaican immigrant who fears police will not believe the photocopy of a judge's order that he be allowed to stay in the country, the only paperwork he has that gives him legal status here.

Brewer's office had no immediate comment, but she has been strenuously arguing Arizona's case to correct what she called misinformation about the law.

She ordered training for all police to ensure no racial profiling occurs. Last week she formed a group to try to win back business to the state, which has been the target of calls for boycotts.

The Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100518,0,3302168.story)

[Laura Cereta]

'Bout time...

[foxyladi]

feds do your job.:eek:

[Tybee]

Are they also suing the federal government for almost the same law? Or, maybe for not doing their job?

[RichardMZhlubb]

Are they also suing the federal government for almost the same law?

It's not "almost the same law." There's nothing in the Federal statute that authorizes law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship absent probable cause.

[Tybee]

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Is-federal-immigration-law-different-from/1ZdAAkpg-U6oVELk47QVBw.cspx

[LucyTN]

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Is-federal-immigration-law-different-from/1ZdAAkpg-U6oVELk47QVBw.cspxThanks. Sort of clears that up, doesn't it?

[RichardMZhlubb]

Thanks. Sort of clears that up, doesn't it?

Well, actually, it doesn't, because the writer of the article doesn't address the key distinction. The Arizona statute authorizes law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship based on a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant, when the person has been detained for some other reason (which could be as simple as a basic traffic stop or loitering claim). That's far too vague a standard and is basically a license for law enforcement to demand ID at their whim. The Federal statute makes it a crime for an alien not to carry proper identification. Nowhere does it authorize law enforcement to demand proof of ID. That's a huge difference.

[LucyTN]

Well, actually, it doesn't, because the writer of the article doesn't address the key distinction. The Arizona statute authorizes law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship based on a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant, when the person has been detained for some other reason (which could be as simple as a basic traffic stop or loitering claim). That's far too vague a standard and is basically a license for law enforcement to demand ID at their whim. The Federal statute makes it a crime for an alien not to carry proper identification. Nowhere does it authorize law enforcement to demand proof of ID. That's a huge difference.I have no problem with law enforcement asking for id, and can't see why any law abiding citizen would, as I've said before. This whole hissy fit people are throwing because someone might have to show their id is ridiculous to me.

[samurai007]

Well, actually, it doesn't, because the writer of the article doesn't address the key distinction. The Arizona statute authorizes law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship based on a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant, when the person has been detained for some other reason (which could be as simple as a basic traffic stop or loitering claim). That's far too vague a standard and is basically a license for law enforcement to demand ID at their whim. The Federal statute makes it a crime for an alien not to carry proper identification. Nowhere does it authorize law enforcement to demand proof of ID. That's a huge difference.

So you're saying the Federal law is completely unenforcable, and that's why you don't mind it? It's against the law not to have ID, but no one is allowed to actually check to see if you have ID, so it's ok? Actually making the law enforceable by allowing officers with reasonable suspicion to ask for ID is the big problem?

That's like saying it's against the law to drive without a license, but no law officer should be able to ask to see your license if you are stopped... then what's the point of having the law?

[RichardMZhlubb]

So you're saying the Federal law is completely unenforcable, and that's why you don't mind it? It's against the law not to have ID, but no one is allowed to actually check to see if you have ID, so it's ok? Actually making the law enforceable by allowing officers with reasonable suspicion to ask for ID is the big problem?

That's like saying it's against the law to drive without a license, but no law officer should be able to ask to see your license if you are stopped... then what's the point of having the law?

Probable cause is the key. As the Fourth Amendment says, "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." It's against the law for me to have certain types of materials in my house (be they illegal drugs, explosives, etc.), but that doesn't mean that a cop can knock on my door and ask to search my house jut because he has a "reasonable suspicion" that I may have such contraband. The standard for probable cause is much higher, as it should be.

[samurai007]

Probable cause is the key. As the Fourth Amendment says, "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." It's against the law for me to have certain types of materials in my house (be they illegal drugs, explosives, etc.), but that doesn't mean that a cop can knock on my door and ask to search my house jut because he has a "reasonable suspicion" that I may have such contraband. The standard for probable cause is much higher, as it should be.

Anytime you are pulled over, for any reason, the 1st thing the cop asks for is ID, registration, and proof on insurance. There is no "probable cause", no "oath or affirmation". It's finding out who the person is, whether the car belongs to them, and whether it's insured, not a full search and seizure of the car, which requires a lot more evidence. Similarly, asking someone pulled over for their ID as proof of citizenship is not a full search and seizure, it's simply finding out who the cop is talking to and whether they are there legally.

[foxyladi]

Well, actually, it doesn't, because the writer of the article doesn't address the key distinction. The Arizona statute authorizes law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship based on a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant, when the person has been detained for some other reason (which could be as simple as a basic traffic stop or loitering claim). That's far too vague a standard and is basically a license for law enforcement to demand ID at their whim. The Federal statute makes it a crime for an alien not to carry proper identification. Nowhere does it authorize law enforcement to demand proof of ID. That's a huge difference.

flaunt it if ya got it:laughing:

[kyforhillary]

Are the ACLU also going to sue to stop the Government from merging in with the churches to get the word out about global warming and other programs they want to push on us?

[Laura Cereta]

Show Your Support as the ACLU Takes on Racial Profiling (https://secure.aclu.org/site/SSurvey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=27080&s_src=UNW100001ACT&s_subsrc=100517_arizona_tw)

The ACLU is doing everything possible to challenge Arizona’s new racial profiling law. But we need supporters like you to join us and show that people all across America won’t stand for this kind of injustice.

If we don’t act quickly, it may be too late. Extremist lawmakers in 10 more states have already pledged to introduce copies of the outrageous Arizona legislation.

Please get involved today by helping create an enormous show of opposition to Arizona’s discriminatory law.

Sign up below to stand with the ACLU in this crucial fight, and get your free bumper sticker!

Sign up @ link.

[Jim744]

Without the law, there could still be racial profiling (looking for people who are predominently Mexican coming across the border breaking the law as I prefer to frame it.)

The law, if anything PREVENTS racial profiling for the sake of it because it states there cannot be racial profiling.

So, if anything, this law addresses that problem (stupidly looking for illegal Mexican aliens).

I saw a poll where 55% of Americans favor the law. Again, the admin and Congress are out of step with the people (except illegals who vote and their sympathizers).

[Spang]

Legal Challenge to Arizona Racial Profiling

PHOENIX, AZ – MALDEF and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today in a federal court in Phoenix challenging Arizona’s new law requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.

The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the American Civil Liberties Union, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

"Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign,” said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“This law violates the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect."

The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.

“This discriminatory law pushes Arizona into a spiral of fear, increased crime, and costly litigation,” said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF Senior National Counsel. “We expect that this misguided law will be enjoined before it takes effect.”

One of the individuals the coalition is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee asserts that he will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that, although the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his “papers.”

Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa, is a resident of the state of New Mexico who is currently attending Arizona State University. The state of New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a driver’s license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that would prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot supply proof upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest and detain him.

Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement’s primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.

“This ill-conceived law sends a clear message to communities of color that the authorities are not to be trusted, making them less likely to come forward as victims of or witnesses to crime,” said Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC. “Arizona’s authorities should not allow public safety to take a back seat to racial profiling."

“African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial profiling,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP. “The government should be preventing police from investigating and detaining people based on color and accent, not mandating it. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for anyone.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of labor, domestic violence, day laborer, human services and social justice organizations, including Friendly House, Services Employees International Union (SEIU) International, SEIU Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW), Arizona South Asians for Safe Families (ASAFSF), Southside Presbyterian Church, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Muslim American Society, Japanese American Citizens League, Valle del Sol, Inc, Coalicíon De Derechos Humanos, individual named plaintiffs who will be subject to harassment or arrest under the law and a class of similarly situated persons.

“This extreme law puts Arizona completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality,” said Julie Su, Litigation Director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. “In a state where U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interned during World War II, it is deeply troubling that a law that would mandate lower-class treatment of people of color, immigrants and others seen to be outsiders would pass in 2010.”

“Day laborers have repeatedly defended their First Amendment rights in federal courts and successfully established their undeniable right to seek work in public areas,” said Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of NDLON. “Arizona's effort to criminalize day laborers and migrants is an affront to the Constitution and threatens to disrupt national unity, and we are confident that federal courts will intervene to ensure the protection of our bedrock civil rights.”


Even prior to the passage of the statute, local enforcement of federal immigration law has already caused rampant racial profiling of Latinos in Arizona, most notably in Maricopa County. The ACLU, MALDEF and other members of the coalition have several pending lawsuits against government officials in Arizona because of civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens and immigrants.

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Halliday et al., include:

ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang,
Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
MALDEF: Thomas A. Saenz, Nina Perales, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor
Viramontes, Gladys Limón and Nicholás Espiritu;
NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek
Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo
NDLON: Chris Newman;
NAACP: Jealous and Laura Blackburne;
Altshuler Berzon: Jonathan Weissglass;
Munger of Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan
T. Boyd and Yuval Miller;
Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The Source (http://www.socialistwebzine.org/2010/05/legal-challenge-to-arizona-racial.html)