Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act!
|
|
The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, steps up state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens. The paragraph on intent in the legislation says it embodies an "attrition through enforcement" doctrine.
Critics of the legislation say it encourages racial profiling, while supporters say the law simply enforces existing federal law. The law was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162 within a week of its signing with the goal of addressing some of these concerns. There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities, including boycotts and calls for boycotts of Arizona. Polling has found the law to have majority support in Arizona and nationwide. Passage of the measure has prompted other states to consider adopting similar legislation.
The act was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. It is scheduled to go into effect on July 28, 2010, ninety days after the end of the legislative session. Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law are expected.
SB 1070 Provisions
The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official." Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents; a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail (in the original senate version, a minimum fine of $500 for a first violation, and for a second violation a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum jail sentence of 6 months). A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.The law also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement. A private citizen who prevails in such a lawsuit may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag or induc" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status, will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.
SB 1070 and Arizona HB 2162
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin." The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.SB 1070 Background and passage
Arizona is the first state with such a law as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter. Many police departments discourage such inquiries to avoid deterring immigrants from reporting crimes and cooperating in other investigations.Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. As the state with the most illegal crossings of the Mexico – United States border, its remote and punishing deserts are the entry point for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
Arizona has a history of passing restrictions on illegal immigration, including legislation in 2007 that imposed heavy sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. Measures similar to SB 1070 had been passed by the legislature several times before, only to be vetoed by Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano. She was subsequently elevated to Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration and was replaced by Republican Secretary of State of Arizona Jan Brewer. There is a similar history of referenda, such as the Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) that have sought to restrict illegal immigrants' use of social services. The 'attrition through enforcement' doctrine is one that think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies have been supporting for several years.
Impetus for SB 1070 is attributed to shifting demographics leading to a larger Hispanic population, increased drugs- and human smuggling-related violence in Mexico and Arizona, and a struggling state economy. State residents were also frustrated by the lack of federal progress on immigration, which they viewed as even more disappointing given that Napolitano was in the administration. Much of the drafting of the bill was done by Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law and a figure long associated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform who had written immigration-related bills in many other parts of the country. The Arizona State Senate approved an early version of the bill in February 2010. The major sponsor of the bill was State Senator Russell Pearce, who had long been one of Arizona's most vocal opponents of illegal immigration and who had successfully pushed through several prior pieces of tough legislation against those he termed "invaders on the American sovereignty". Saying, "Enough is enough," he stated figuratively that this new bill would remove handcuffs from law enforcement and place them on violent offenders.
The killing of 58-year-old Robert Krentz and his dog, shot on March 27, 2010, while doing fence work on his large ranch roughly 19 miles (31 km) from the Mexican border, contributed to the passage of this round of Arizona legislation. Arizona police had no suspect in murder, but traced a set of footprints from the crime scene to the border, and the resulting speculation that the killer was an illegal alien increased support among the public for the measure.
The bill, with a number of changes made to it, passed the Arizona House of Representatives on April 13 by a 35–21 party-line vote. The revised measure then passed the State Senate on April 19 by a 17–11 vote that also closely followed party lines, with all but one Republican voting for the bill, ten Democrats voting against the bill, and two Democrats not voting.
Once a bill passes, the governor has five days to make a decision to sign, veto, or let it pass unsigned. The question then became whether or not Governor Brewer would sign the bill into law, as she had remained silent on the measure while weighing the consequences. Immigration had not been a prime focus of her political career up to this point, although as secretary of state she had supported Arizona Proposition 200 (2004). Also as governor she made a push for Arizona Proposition 100 (2010), a one percent increase in the state sales tax to prevent cuts in education, health and human services, and public safety, despite opposition from within her own party. These implications along with an upcoming tough Republican Party primary in the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election from other conservative opponents supporting the bill were all considered major factors in her decision. During the bill's development, her staff had gone over its language line by line with State Senator Pearce, but she had also said she had concerns about several of its provisions. The Mexican Senate urged the governor to veto the measure and the Mexican Embassy to the U.S. raised concerns about potential racial profiling that may result. Citizen messages to Brewer, however, were 3–1 in favor of the law. A Rasmussen Reports poll taken between the House and Senate votes showed wide support for the bill among likely voters in the state, with 70 percent in favor and 23 percent opposed. Of those same voters, 53 percent were at least somewhat concerned that actions taken due to the measures in the bill would violate the civil rights of some American citizens. Brewer's staff said that she was considering the legal issues, the impact on the state's business, and the feelings of the citizens in coming to her decision. They added that "she agonizes over these things." Brewer's political allies said her decision would cause her political trouble no matter which way she decided. Most observers expected in the end that she would sign the bill, and on April 23 she did.
During the time of the signing, there were over a thousand people at the Arizona State Capitol both in support of and opposition to the bill, and some minor civil unrest occurred. Against concerns that the measure would promote racial profiling, Brewer stated that no such behavior would be tolerated: "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." She vowed to ensure that police forces had proper training relative to the law and civil rights, and soon said she would issue an executive order requiring additional training for all officers on how to implement SB 1070 without engaging in racial profiling; the order was issued on April 23, 2010. Ultimately, she said, "We have to trust our law enforcement." Sponsor Pearce called the bill's signing "a good day for America."
The immigration issue also was center stage in the re-election campaign of Republican U.S. Senator from Arizona John McCain, who had been a past champion of federal immigration reform measures such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Also faced with a primary battle, against the more conservative J. D. Hayworth (who had made measures against illegal immigration a central point of his candidacy), McCain supported SB1070 only hours before its passage in the State Senate. McCain said on The O'Reilly Factor: "It's the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe." McCain subsequently became a vocal defender of the law, saying that the state had been forced to take action given the federal government's inability to control the border.
SB 1070 Reaction
SB 1070 and Opinion polls
A Rasmussen Reports poll done nationally around the time of the signing indicated that 60 percent of Americans were in favor, against 31 percent opposed, of legislation allowing local police to "stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant." The same poll also indicated that 58 percent are at least somewhat concerned that "efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens." A national Gallup Poll found that more than three-quarters of Americans had heard about the law, and of those who had, 51 percent were in favor of it against 39 percent opposed. An Angus Reid Public Opinion poll indicated that 71 percent of Americans said they supported the notion of requiring their own police to determine people's status if there was "reasonable suspicion" the people were illegal immigrants, and arresting those people if they could not prove they were legally in the United States. A nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll found similar results to the others, with 51 percent of respondents saying the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach to the problem of illegal immigration, 36 percent saying it went too far, and 9 percent saying it did not go far enough. A 57 percent majority thought that the federal government should be responsible for determining immigration law. A national Fox News poll found that 61 percent of respondents thought Arizona was right to take action itself rather than wait for federal action, and 64 percent thought the Obama administration should wait and see how the law works in practice rather than trying to stop it right away. Experts caution that in general, polling has difficulty reflecting complex immigration issues and law. Pollsters argue the numbers likely represent an overall frustration with Washington and support for Arizona's willingness to act, rather than an anti-immigrant reaction.Another Rasmussen poll, done statewide after several days of heavy news coverage about the controversial law and its signing, found a large majority of Arizonans still supported it, by a 64 percent to 30 percent margin. Rasmussen also found that Brewer's approval ratings as governor have shot up, going from 40 percent of likely voters before the signing to 56 percent after, and that her margin over prospective Democratic gubernatorial opponent, State Attorney General Terry Goddard (who opposes the law) widened.
SB 1070 and Public officials
The bill was criticized by President Barack Obama who called it "misguided" and said it would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." Obama did later note that the HB 2162 modification had stipulated that the law not be applied in a discriminatory fashion, but the president said there was still the possibility of suspected illegal immigrants "being harassed and arrested". He repeatedly called for federal immigration reform legislation to forestall such actions among the states and as the only long-term solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had "deep concerns" about the law and that it would divert necessary law enforcement resources from combating violent criminals. (As governor, Napolitano had consistently vetoed similar legislation throughout her term.) In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, McCain drew out that Napolitano had made her remarks before having actually read the law. Michael Posner, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, brought up the law in discussions with a Chinese delegation to illustrate human rights areas the U.S. needed to improve on. This led McCain and fellow senator from Arizona Jon Kyl to strongly object to any possibly implied comparison of the law to human rights abuses in China.The Arizona legislation was one of several reasons pushing Democratic congressional leaders to introduce a proposal addressing immigration. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York sent a letter to Governor Brewer asking her to delay the law while Congress works on comprehensive immigration reform, but Brewer quickly rejected the proposal.
The law has been popular among the Republican Party base electorate; however, several Republicans have opposed aspects of the measure, mostly from those who have represented heavily Hispanic states. These include former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and current U.S. senatorial candidate Marco Rubio, and former George W. Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove. Some analysts have stated that Republican support for the law gives short-term political benefits by energizing their base and independents, but longer term carries the potential of alienating the growing Hispanic population from the party. The issue played a role in several Republican primary contests during the 2010 congressional election season. One Arizona Democrat who defended the bill was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who said her constituents were "sick and tired" of the federal government failing to protect the border and that the current situation was "completely unacceptable." Hispanic Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives Steve Montenegro supported the law, saying that "This bill has nothing to do with race or profiling." The measure was hailed by Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona – known for his tough crackdowns on illegal immigration within his own jurisdiction – who hoped the measure would cause the federal action to seal the border. Arpaio said, "I think they'll be afraid that other states will follow this new law that's now been passed."
Republican politicians in nearly a dozen states, including Utah, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska, have endorsed their own state legislation on illegal immigration in the wake of Arizona SB 1070; many of these politicians hope to pass legislation that mirrors Arizona's. In some cases, such as with Oklahoma House of Representatives member Randy Terrill's position, other states would go further in regard to penalties. Such proposals drew strong reaction both for and against, and some states may wait to see how the Arizona law fares in the courts before moving forward.
SB 1070 and Local law enforcement
Arizona's law enforcement groups have been split on the bill, with statewide rank-and-file police officer groups generally supporting it and police chief associations opposing it. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, calling the provisions of the bill "problematic" and expressing that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. Additionally, some officers have repeated the past concern that illegal immigrants may come to fear the police, and not contact them in situations of emergency or in instances where they have valuable knowledge of a crime. The Phoenix Police Union, however, has supported the legislation.SB 1070 Protests and criticism
Thousands of people staged protests in state capital Phoenix over the law, and a pro-immigrant activist called the measure "racist". The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials said the legislation was "an unconstitutional and costly measure that will violate the civil rights of all Arizonans." Mayor Chris Coleman of Saint Paul, Minnesota, labeled it as "draconian" as did Democratic Texas House of Representatives member Garnet Coleman. Some Latino leaders have compared the law to Apartheid in South Africa, the treatment of Jews and others in Nazi Germany, or the Japanese American internment during World War II. Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado also said the law's requirement to carry papers all the time was reminiscent of the anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany and feared that Arizona was headed towards becoming a police state. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said, "I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." Proponents of the law have rejected such criticism, and argued that the law was reasonable, limited, and carefully crafted. Stewart Baker, a former Homeland Security official in the George W. Bush administration, said, "The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square. There's nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself." The Anti-Defamation League called for an end to the comparisons with Nazi Germany, saying that no matter how odious or unconstitutional the Arizona law might be, it did not compare to the role that Nazi identity cards played in what eventually became the extermination of European Jews.Critics of the measure have accused it of encouraging racial profiling, and as such it has been called the "Driving While Brown", "Living While Brown", or "Walking While Brown" law. The Reverend Jesse Jackson said that opposition to the law would lead to common ground being formed between Latinos and African Americans (the latter's vernacular phrase "Driving While Black" was the origin of the new phrases against the Arizona law).
Mexican President Felipe Calderón's office said that "the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law and the criminalization of migration." President Calderón also characterized the new law as a "violation of human rights". Calderón repeated his criticism during a subsequent state visit to the White House. The measure was also strongly criticized by Mexican health minister José Ángel Córdova, former education minister Josefina Vázquez Mota, and Governor of Baja California José Guadalupe Osuna Millán, with Osuna saying it "could disrupt the indispensable economic, political and cultural exchanges of the entire border region." The Mexican Foreign Ministry issued a travel advisory for its citizens visiting Arizona, saying "It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."
Senator Schumer and Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg have criticized the law, with Bloomberg stating that it sends exactly the wrong message to international companies and travelers. Some immigration experts said the law might make workers with H-1B visas vulnerable to being caught in public without their hard-to-replace paperwork, which they are ordinarily reluctant to carry everywhere, and that as a consequence universities and technology companies in the state might find it harder to recruit students and employees. Some college and university administrators shared this fear, and President Robert N. Shelton of the University of Arizona expressed concern regarding the withdrawal of a number of honor roll students from the university in reaction to this bill.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced the law, characterizing it as draconian and saying it "could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens." The National Council of Churches also strongly criticized the law, saying that it ran counter to centuries of biblical teachings regarding justice and neighborliness. State Senator Pearce, a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which has a substantial population in Arizona), frequently said that his efforts to push forward this legislation was based on that church's 13 Articles of Faith, one of which instructs in obeying the law. This association caused a backlash against the LDS Church and threatened its proselytizing efforts among the area's Hispanic population. The church emphasized that it took no position on the law or immigration in general and that Pearce did not speak for it. Activists within the church were present on both sides of the immigration debate, and both proponents and opponents of the law appealed to religious arguments for support.
Protests against the law extended to the arts and sports world as well. Colombian pop singer Shakira came to Phoenix and gave a joint press conference against the bill with Mayor of Phoenix Phil Gordon. Linda Ronstadt, of part Mexican descent and raised in Arizona, also appeared in Phoenix and said, "Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down." A May 16 concert in Mexico City's Zócalo, called Prepa Si Youth For Dignity: We Are All Arizona, drew some 85,000 people to hear Molotov, Jaguares, and Maldita Vecindad headline a seven-hour show in protest against the law.
The Major League Baseball Players Association, of whose members one quarter are born outside the U.S., said that the law "could have a negative impact on hundreds of major league players," especially since many teams come to Arizona for spring training, and called for it to be "repealed or modified promptly." A Major League Baseball game at Wrigley Field where the Arizona Diamondbacks were visiting the Chicago Cubs saw demonstrators protesting the law. Protesters focused on the Diamondbacks because owner Ken Kendrick had been a prominent fundraiser in Republican causes, but he in fact opposed the law. The Phoenix Suns of the National Basketball Association wore their "Los Suns" uniforms normally used for the league's "Noche Latina" program for their May 5, 2010 (Cinco de Mayo) playoff game against the San Antonio Spurs to show their support for Arizona's Latino community and to voice disapproval of the immigration law. The Suns' political action, rare in American team sports, created a firestorm and drew opposition from many of the teams' fans; President Obama highlighted it, while conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh called the move "cowardice, pure and simple."
Passage of the HB 2162 modifications to the law, although intended to address some of the criticisms of it, did little to change the minds of the law's opponents.
Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010, a day traditionally used around the world to assert workers' rights. A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Mahoney, attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters waving Mexican flags and chanting "Sí se puede". The city had become the national center of protests against the Arizona law. Around 25,000 people were at a protest in Dallas and more than 5,000 were in Chicago and Milwaukee, while rallies in other cities generally attracted people around a thousand people or so. Democratic U.S. Congressman from Illinois Luis Gutiérrez was part of a 35-person group arrested in front of the White House in a planned act of civil disobedience that was also urging President Obama to push for comprehensive immigration reform. There and in some other locations, demonstrators expressed frustration with what they saw as the administration's lack of action on immigration reform, with signs holding messages such as "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."
Protests against the law have taken more pragmatic forms as well. Many illegal migrant workers left Arizona to seek employment in Texas, California and New Mexico in order to avoid confrontations with Arizona law enforcement.
SB 1070 Boycotts
Boycotts of Arizona were quickly organized in response to SB 1070, including one by the City of Los Angeles announced on May 12 which prohibits city contracts with companies headquartered in Arizona, currently valued at $56 million, along with similar boycotts by other California cities including San Francisco and Oakland.U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva, from Arizona's 7th congressional district, called for an economic boycott of his state, by industries from manufacturing to tourism, in response to SB 1070. His call was echoed by La Opinión, the nation's largest Spanish-language newspaper, the Rev. Al Sharpton, as well as in proposed resolutions by members of the government of San Francisco, the Los Angeles City Council, the Council of the District of Columbia, and elsewhere. San Francisco, Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Denver took specific action, banning some of their employees from work-related travel to Arizona. In an attempt to push back against the Los Angeles City Council's action, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce sent a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, suggesting that he'd "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so that Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation." Such a move was infeasible for reasons of ownership and governance, and Pierce later stated that he was not making a literal threat to cut power to the city. California itself has an extremely similar law already adopted into Section 834b of its penal code.
Calls for various kinds of boycotts were also spread through social media sites, and there were reports of individuals or groups changing their plans or activities in protest of the law. The prospect of an adverse economic impact made Arizonan business leaders and groups nervous, and Phoenix officials estimated that the city could lose up to $90 million in hotel and convention business over the next five years due to the controversy over the law. Phoenix Mayor Gordon urged people not to punish the entire state as a consequence.
Major organizations opposing the law, such as the National Council of La Raza, refrained from initially supporting a boycott, knowing that such actions are difficult to execute successfully and even if done cause broad economic suffering, including among the people they are supporting. Arizona did have a past case of a large-scale boycott during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it lost many conventions and several hundred million dollars in revenues in response to Governor Evan Mecham's cancellation of a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day state holiday. La Raza subsequently switched its position regarding SB 1070 and became one of the leaders of the boycott effort.
The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposed both the law and the idea of boycotting, saying the latter would only hurt will small businesses and the state’s economy, which was already badly damaged by the collapse of real estate prices and the late-2000s recession. Other state business groups opposed a boycott for the same reasons. Representative Grijalva said he wanted to keep a boycott restricted to conferences and conventions and only for a limited time: "The idea is to send a message, not grind down the state economy." By early May, the state had lost a projected $6–10 million in business revenue, according to the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association. Governor Brewer said that she was disappointed and surprised at the proposed boycotts – "How could further punishing families and businesses, large and small, be a solution viewed as constructive?" – but that the state would not back away from the law.
Sports-related boycotts were proposed as well. U.S. Congressman from New York José Serrano asked baseball commissioner Bud Selig to move the 2011 Major League Baseball All-Star Game from Chase Field in Phoenix. The manager of the Chicago White Sox, Ozzie Guillen, stated that he would boycott that game, "as a Latin American". The World Boxing Council, based in Mexico City, said it would not schedule Mexican boxers to fight in the state.
In reaction to the boycott talk, proponents of the law advocated making a special effort to buy products and services from Arizona in order to indicate support for the law. These efforts, sometimes termed a "buycott", were spread by social media and talk radio as well as by elements of the Tea Party movement.
SB 1070 Constitutionality
A number of national and state organizations have announced their intentions to take or support legal action against the statute on constitutional grounds, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the NALEO Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Mayor of Phoenix Gordon. In addition, President Obama instructed his administration to closely monitor the civil rights implications of the law. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government was considering several options, including a court challenge based on the law leading to possible civil rights violations. Holder drew fire from proponents of the law after he acknowledged that he had not yet read the statute.The ACLU criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over the states in immigration matters and provides that only the federal government can enact and enforce immigration laws. Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law says that "The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents."
According to one of the bill's authors (Kobach), the law embodies the doctrine of "concurrent enforcement" – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict – and that believes it would thus survive any challenge: "There are some things that states can do and some that states can't do, but this law threads the needle perfectly.... Arizona only penalizes what is already a crime under federal law." State Senator Pearce noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts. However, various legal experts were divided on whether the law would survive a court challenge, with one law professor saying it "sits right on that thin line of pure state criminal law and federally controlled immigration law." Past lower court decisions in this area were not always consistent and a decision on the bill's legality from the U.S. Supreme Court is one possible outcome.
On April 29, 2010, a Latino Christian group and an Arizona police officer were the first to file suit against SB 1070. On May 5, Tucson and Flagstaff became the first two cities to sue the state over the law; San Luis later joined them. On May 17, a joint lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by the ACLU, the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and four other groups, charging the law was unconstitutional and would encourage racial profiling and endanger public safety. This suit named county attorneys in sheriffs in Arizona's counties as defendants, rather than the state or Governor Brewer as some of the earlier suits had. It is likely that all the suits would be combined into one case for the courts to hear.
Much of the content on this page was obtained from the Wikipedia, which is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License
