Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional

[Jefferson23]

Not all of it will be thrown out by the courts -- but the most controversial provision has to be. Here's why

By James Doty

Monday, Apr 26, 2010


Minutes after signing the nation's toughest illegal immigration law, Arizona governor Jan Brewer was asked about her confidence in its ability to withstand a legal challenge. Even the most complex legal wars begin with public relations battles, and the question provided the governor a good opportunity for a first strike -- a full-throated defense of the law's legality. She passed.

“Well, you know,” Brewer said, "it's probably going to survive, I think, i-i-in most areas."

The governor's hesitation was warranted. Although Brewer might be right that much of the law is legally unobjectionable, there is a high probability that its most controversial provision will be struck down before the law goes into effect.

The "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (known mainly as SB 1070) requires that police officers determine the immigration status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the country illegally. The officer must then verify the suspect's immigration status with the federal government.

As many have noted, the most obvious (and provocative) question raised by this provision is, "What do illegal immigrants look like?" They're probably Hispanic, but so are 30 percent of Arizona's residents. So unless the law authorizes the stopping and questioning of any person who looks darker than the average Caucasian, there needs to be some other criteria that set apart illegal aliens from lawful residents.


But so far, no one has come up with any. When asked what other factors an officer might use to single out an unlawful resident, Brewer replied, "We have to trust our law enforcement."

remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/26/is_arizona_immigration_law_constitutional/index.html