How, specifically, does the Arizona immigration law violate the Federal Constitution?

Question

To my understanding, it just pretty much reinforces Federal law. It's a crime to be in the USA illegally, so why not actually execute it? Then again, I'm not well versed on the subject.

Unbiased answers with citations to actual documents are preferable. : )

Answer 1

I'm not really sure how it does because it completely mirrors the federal law and even defers the persons affected to federal authorities if someone is suspected of being an illegal immigrant. Usually, even if there is a federal law, a state can also make a similar law as long as it does not conflict with the federal law. The only argument I can think of is the whole idea of "field pre-emption" which is different than "conflict pre-emption" in that if the "field" is so covered by feds, that it cannot ever be governed by states. And in that case, even if the law doesn't conflict with the federal law, the feds can still deny the states from regulating the matter. A common example is the US Post Office. But the thing is, is that the feds have field pre-emption on matters related to "deportation" and the Arizona law does not give Arizona any right to decide whether someone is deported because like I said before, Arizona immediately refers the person to federal authorities. So I would like to know what people think is different. Because I read both and the Arizona law fits nicely into the federal one. In fact all it does is help out the feds because they don't have enough federal agents to secure the border.



I think it has something to do with Obama's Amnesty legislation he wanted to bring during his office. Obama claimed that they could not secure the borders because they just didn't have enough man power - and therefore amnesty would be necessary. But when Arizona answered his dillema by voluntarily helping out the feds, all of sudden he doesn't like that. I think his agenda of amnesty is being impeded and that is why this is even considered an issue at all.



For those who think the law is racist are mistaken. The feds can actually be way more racist. They can demand "papers" whenever they want. And the Arizona law only allows law enforcement to ask for id when a non-race related legitimate traffic stop occurs, etc. A drivers license is considered valid id, so I don't know why people are so upset. I wouldn't be offended if police asked for my drivers license if I was pulled over. In fact I would expect it. People are just trying to make amnesty happen and using the discrimination card as their weapon. The real issue is illegal immigration - not race.



EDIT: It seems like too many people who don't understand "pre-emption" are trying to chime in on this one and basically just argue their agenda. This is a classic case of a state law that does nothing more or less than a federal law and it even works in concert with it. I have no opinion on the matter but as a law school graduate, I see no problem with this law. And I was originally against it because I have so many Mexican-American friends. I thought if this law would put them into any kind of jeopardy they normally wouldn't be in, I would be adamantly apposed. But after reading both laws, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this law. Obama has an agenda and many organizations have an agenda. So we shall see how this turns out. I have a feeling that if it makes it to the Supreme Court, that we will all realize there is nothing wrong with it.



And yea, the first poster is wrong. It's not in the Constitution. It's in "Title 8" of the US Code - but Arizona is not trying to deport people or naturalize people - just hand over any suspects to the feds. But again, all they have to do is show a driver's license. And every American has to do that anyway when they get pulled over.

Answer 2

Fourth Ammendment: "Reasonable suspicion" in AZ law not a reasonable search, despite the fact that it uses the word reasonable. Suspicion is not enough. The courts have clearly found that the probable cause needed for a reasonable search is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true." It sounds the same if you stop after the first 5 words, but the AZ law ignores the rest.



Article 4, section 3, clause 2 directly gives the Federal government the power to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory".



Fourteenth Ammendment:

Searching citizens who are suspected of being illegal and requiring them to affirmatively prove their citizenship violates the Fourteenth Ammendment, section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

It goes on to guarantee due process and equal protection

due process - The process of requiring people to prove their citizenship with papers at the whim of the police is not due process. There is a lot of case law defining what due process is, and this ain't it.

Equal protection - requiring Hispanics to display documents proving their citizenship would clearly violate equal protection. Case law is clear. As many laws do that have been struck down, this law does not use the word Hispanic, but the "probable effect" is that people who look Hispanic will be confronted by police a lot more.



And that gets to the fundamental of what it means to be American. I am all for confronting criminals, but it is wrong to search and detain people who you might think look like they are the criminal type, even if some turn out to be criminals. Others feel that catching criminals means giving up our rights because they know that it isn't white people who are giving up their rights, and because we don't like "their kind" and don't really care that some are criminals, but some are not.

Answer 3

I am suprised as to how humans quote th epledge of allegance and the charter. I might believe that the pledge method you're pledging your loyalty to the United States of American, which means that being a legislation abiding citizen (hmm...unlawful....breaking federal legislation?) As a ways because the fourth amednment of the charter...you must be a citizen for it ot follow. Being a citizen of any person nation in distinct signifies that it is legislation shield you. As a ways as journey is involved as recounted that on account that the US residents journey right here and there...good it is on account that we do not over lengthen our keep very a lot more than the 3 months visa waiver given for tourism. FACT: nine of the eleven terrorist of nine/eleven had been right here on expired visas. Do you believe that if this legislation was once enacted in 2001 or faster that the might had been stopped? exceptionally as a couple of of them had been stopped on using infractions. People will have to continually appear in any respect points and no longer simply make a decision something and it is racist. the one humans it is racist to are the ones which are honestly breaking the LAW,

Answer 4

Because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that CONGRESS is the one that makes immigration laws. Not States.

Answer 5

Also Arizona may be in violation not only of substitution its own laws for federal laws, but also for possible discriminatory enforcement of federal laws which is unconstitutional. The only other issue may be that the federal government is trying to protect Arizona from itself and for bringing a virtual plague of locusts down on themselves. How is that possible? If Arizona actually arrested tens of thousands of undocumented aliens, would they pay millions of state tax dollars to build detention facilities that would be suitable for men, women, children, whole families in a manner that did not result in their deaths or injury due to overcrowding, lack of proper sanitation, etc? Or would Arizona spend millions of dollars contracting an endless parade of buses going from Phoenix to the border? Who is going to pay all the fees to hire additional state lawyers to defend Arizona from accusations of false arrest when the wrong person(s) get detained and deported? What happens when Arizona gets totally boycotted and ends up losing millions in tourist dollars? Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for since you may get it along with unintended consequences you never considered in the first place.