This YouTube video from 4409 "Wake Up America" Productions
is what people really need to understand about 'that law' that everyone is talking about when not picturing BP exec Tony Hayward in some contraption from one of the Saw movies.
"Please don't kill me, America! I promise another ad campaign and more toxic dispersant!"
This is not about immigration. This is about encroaching on civil liberties first with racial profiling and then moving forward from there to affect all groups.
At least five lawsuits have been filed thus far to fight against the Arizona law coming on behalf of the ACLU and others.
A group of 14 civil and immigrant-rights organizations and 10 individuals on Monday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law. It is the fifth legal challenge of the law, which goes into effect July 29 and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
All the lawsuits seek to prevent the law from going into effect. However, this latest case names Arizona's county officials as defendants, while previous suits were filed against state officials.
Participants in this case include the American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Immigration Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
Since I put "for dummies" in my headline I'll move forward slowly about the why
on this show-me-your-papers
law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer is unconstitutional. Instead slaming a bunch of legalese at you it's much better to simply look closely at the Section B
paragraph of AZ SB 1070:
"For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official ..."
This just means anything at all that might be contact with the police. If they flag you down on the street when you are walking, that is a "lawful stop." It has very little to do with vehicles and everything to do with the security of your person from harassment from the police. Even when a police officer has mistaken your identity, let's say, it is still a commiting a "lawful stop" to detain you and discover your true indentity. In short, this opening clause of the law is both sweeping and overreaching in terms of the authority it grants. In this language alone that law has isolated undocumented workers from seeking police services should they be attacked or threatened in their safety for even requesting police services: a 911 call is nothing more an invitation to legal harassment and then deportation.
"... where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine immigration status of the person"
Many advocates for this draconian law claim it mirrors the existing federal immigration law, but this is completely false. No standing U.S. law fails to define what exactly "reasonable suspicion" is to be recognized as in regards to the infraction in question. You may have heard the phrase: "What does an illegal look like?" This is what these people are referring to. There is no standard set within any part of this law as to what exactly is the definition of "reasonable suspicion" of being here under undocumented ("illegal alien") status. This failure to define what the terms of "reasonable suspicion" entail creates a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure
" which requires "probable cause" be clearly established prior to such "reasonable attempt[s]" of the Arizona law to toss you in a cell or search your person in any manner. Furhermore, the Fifth Amendment
also protects any person, be they citizen or not, from incriminating themselves so this very act of having state authorities asking a person to identify their status with the federal immigration bureau
is a "reasonable attempt" to force the affected party to admit to a minor misdemeanor. Which still ultimately amounts to a form of self incrimination. Another way to understand this is know that if a undocumented worker knew their rights at the time of a "lawful stop" taking place they would be within their rights to claim the Fifth Amendment protections while being asked by a state official their federal immigration status.
"... may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of the subsection ..."
This clause was added after the initial drafting of the law and fails to clarify just exactly how an officer is to determine immigration status without the use of "race, color and national origin" as the primary factor in raising the question. Had the misguided authors of this law inserted their media commentary that "clothing" was a factor to be decided upon it would have held more weight than this rather asinine and self defeating clause. As I stated above, without the method of attaining "reasonable suspicion" of being here under undocumented status outlined in the this law it remains the only standard in which to enforce such a law would be racial profiling. This clause turned a simply unconstutitional law into a literally unenforcible law.
The greatest layer of the unconstitutionality of AZ SB 1070 is the very top layer:
It is not the business of state authority to tread upon the direct charge of federal agencies. Even when they have a false charge of "inaction" on behalf of the federal government, the state laws never supercede federal authority on existing issues. Before any of the other elements of unconstitutionality would be considered this first brazen disregard for the Constitution will get this anti-civil liberties and pro-racial profiling law thrown out.
My point from the beginning is it is disgusting and un-American of all involved with this law to even have to drag this veiled racism mixed with an unconstitutional power-grab into our courts in the first place. Stiking down this law effectively and immediately is the only course of action that will save both money and freedom in one swift movement.
knows what to do with those Tony Hayward types...
What I myself find especially funny lately is this strange group of people out there, I guess we'll call them the "Blame No One Party" because that seems to be their game here. They are trying to convince us that blaming someone for the catastrophe that BP & Transocean oversaw and helped create is some act of mad lunacy. That we all should be looking forward. To what exactly I'm not too clear. The next environmental disaster that Big Oil will bless us with? I'll be over here with my burning Tony Hayward effigy and "Boycott BP
" signs, thank you very much.
I'm for cutting all our government contracts with BP, and cutting their jet fuel arrangement with the Pentagon as well. A company like BP has no place working under federal auspices of any sort. They have effectively destroyed America. Were this diliberate
and not rampant greed and arrogance it could easily be classified as some form of terrorist or economic attack on all of America.
It seems when extremists blow people up: it's a crime and everybody is mobilized to catch the criminals. But when careless suits at BP blow people up: it's something to be ignored and just accepted as part of modern life.
IPC has backed up my statements here in their Q&A