What right do the people in NY and CA feel they have to question the STATE Law of Arizona?

EDIT:

You Wrote: "

Much as Al Capone was brought down by IRS issues rather than racketeering ones, the "Illegal" status will be rather easy to determine, and therefore remove the person from the state of AZ.

"

Let's be clear that the law in no way affords Arizona the right to remove anyone from the state. Arizona cannot deport anyone from its boundaries under any legal theory whatever. They can't put people over the border with California, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, or Mexico for any reason.

The law says A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.

But no state judge can issue an order to transfer someone out of state absent a warrant of extradition from another state.

All they can do is report an illegal to the CIS or turn them over to CIS custody,

Then here is what happens:

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED, THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.

Note that the person is already released when this happens.

OH and Steven F perhaps it is YOU who should read the law;

"The law DOES NOT intrude on the Federal government's right to make immigration law. It only authorizes local police to determine if an individual is violating Federal law.

"

it does NOT merely allow questioning, it criminializes presence in the state and more. Further it SPECIFICALLY says police may consider the race of the person as part of their determination, but they have to have 'something more' -- and police are creative, anything will do-- to question a person. Interestingly people are not required to answer though it doesn't say that explicitly.

I'm also quite concerned to see that the state makes a major misdemeanor to fail to carry your registration documents. Understand that only LEGAL aliens have such documents. Not ALL have them however. And it is hard to see why it is a state interest to criminalize this failure. I'm betting this will be one of the grounds for overturning the law.

-----

I'm a citizen of Arizzona and I didn't vote for this law and don't support it.

The citizens of every state have the right to criticize or support this because of a thing called "Freedom of Speech". In addition, you will observe that there is an instant movement created for every state to enact similar laws, so they have a direct interest as well.

In addition, I see this as a state's intrusion on exclusively federal jurisdiction. Immigration and interstate commerce are the province of the Congress, not of Arizona.

This law will be the subject of a lawsuit or three; a lot of money will be expended and a Federal Judge will soon issue an order preventing it from going into effect. Then in a year or so there will be a trial, and after that it will be found unconstitutional on several grounds. Then the appeals will come, more time and money, until it is declared unconstitutional again by an Appeals Court. It may then go to the Supreme Court or they may not be interested in hearing it five years from now.

EDIT: One grounds on which a person can be believed to be an illegal is race (explicitly). The Supreme Court is EXTREMELY reluctant to uphold laws that are race specific.

In addition the law does not create any pathway by which either the suspect or the officer can be reasonably certain as to what makes one "likely to be" an illegal alien. US citizens can be brown, speak with accents or no English at all, and not carry documentation.

A right protected by the First Amendment. No more and no less. Not the right to sue, that is held solely by those directly and individually affected. And not the right to vote in Arizona, that is held only by Arizona residents.

The issue that I have with the law is in 2 components:

1) It allows individuals to sue law enforcement if they don't like how law enforcement exercises their judgment in determining reasonable suspicion and probably cause.

2) Due to the fear of such lawsuits, the police in many areas will feel they have little choice but to harass a group of people, by stopping them frequently and checking their papers and jailing them if they, for example, go out jogging without carrying their wallet.

Stopping people for reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime is a power the police always have. This law doesn't affect that.

There are a number of possible constitutional challenges, some of which are purely procedural, such as preclusion. But that's for those who have the right to sue on the matter, which does not include me. I can only voice my opinion and those with the power to vote or sue concerning the issue can do as they wish.

Note, by the way, that Scalia successfully argued in a majority opinion that a minority had significant political power if more people than their proportion of the population votes against discriminating against them. That ridiculous argument dealt with an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prevented the legislature from protecting homosexuals if they see fit. (So for legislation protecting gays, they now need a constitutional amendment, but for any other group, they just need a law, hence the discrimination, it's a bit indirect.) For a case like this, I think the flaw in that logic will be apparent even to Scalia. However he may find other reasons to vote to uphold it. It'll draw interesting lines in the Court. I'm looking at Roberts and Kennedy to be persuaded by Sotomayor and whoever Obama's next pick is. Since he's only had the opportunity to replace liberals, he's been trying to pick replacements who have a chance to persuade Kennedy.

People everywhere have a right to question this law. The right to no unreasonable search and seizure is paramount in the Constitution of the ENTIRE United States.

Wrong is wrong. Just as slavery is wrong (and should never have been a States right issues), so is randomly stopping people and arresting them if they cannot prove citizenship. Nobody is claiming that it's RIGHT to throw illegals out of the country, but it is VERY wrong to allow random police stops because of race.

That's not even discussing the problems the Feds have with Arizona stepping into areas of Federal responsibility. The Constitution is very clear that Immigration is a Federal responsibility, the state has no say in it.

I am willing to BET most of those opposed to the law don't understand it. The law DOES NOT allow Police to stop ANYONE for the purpose of questioning their citizenship/immigration status. What is does is allow them to confirm the status of a person the have reason to believe is in the country illegally after coming into contact with them for OTHER reasons. It also says NOTHING about Hispanics. Granted, there are not many illegal immigrants of German decent, but the law applies equally to them.

Also note: The law DOES NOT intrude on the Federal government's right to make immigration law. It only authorizes local police to determine if an individual is violating Federal law.

You are a focking idiot, but you already knew that. Look before I put you in your place like I have so many who have tried to pull this type of bullshit, I want to ask you, How old are you? I don't want to put to shame an ignorant child, so I just want to make sure. I am a college educated professional who understands the hypocrisy behind statements like the ones you are making, so please do not make me humiliate you in front of all these users, sound good?

I am a conservative New Yorker and I think Arizona's law is great. There are more conservatives in New York than media wants people to know.

Anyone can question whatever they want. It's in the first amendment, freedom of speech.