What exactly is wrong with the Arizona immigration law?

Please only answer if you have read and understand it. You can't just be stopped on the street if you look foreign, and it isn't illegal to not carry papers unlike what many people think. So what is the problem with a state enforcing a federal law?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    nothing is wrong with the arizona immigration law. it is and has been supported by numerous federal court decisions. if the federal government won't act the states can and should act to protect the rights of it's citizen and legal alien residents

    ARIZONA CAN ENFORCE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

    paraphrased from an article by walter moore -- http://WalterMooreSays.com

    national media inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on arizona’s new immigration law -- from people who are not lawyers.

    let me de-bunk baloney peddled by armies of “undocumented lawyers” media chooses to focus on. i will support what i say with actual legal authority.

    i want you to understand state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. federal law does not prevent them from doing so.

    don’t take my word for it. here are ten federal court opinions saying so.

    1. 1983, united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit, in gonzales v city of peoria, 722 f.2d 468.

    2. 1984, united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit, in united states v. salinas-calderon.

    3. 1999, united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit, in united states v. vasquez-alvarez, 176 f.3rd 1294.

    4. 2001, united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit, in united states v. santana-garcia, 264 f.3rd 1188.

    5. 2001, united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit, in united states v. rodriguez-arreola, 270 f.3rd 611.

    6. 2002, united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit, in united states v. favela-favela, 41 fed. appx. 185.

    7. 2005, united states supreme court, in muehler v. mena, 544 u.s. 93.

    8. 2005, united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit, in united states v. hernandez-dominguez.

    9. 2008, united states district court for the eastern district of missouri, in gray v. city of valley park, 2008 u.s. dist lexis 7238, affirmed 2009 u.s. app. lexis 12075.

    10. 2008, united states district court for the district of new jersey, in rojas v. city of new brunswick, 2008 u.s. dist. lexis 57974.

    regulation of immigration is an exclusive federal power, this power does not preempt state activity affecting aliens. when state activities do not impair federal interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.

    court held federal law does not preclude local enforcement of criminal provisions of federal immigration law.

    court held state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest violators of federal law, if such arrest is authorized by state law.

    federal law did not preempt local ordinance suspending business license of business hiring illegal aliens.

    state and local law enforcement officers may enforce federal statutes where enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.

    state trooper’s have investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.

    state trooper’s did not violate defendant’s rights asking about immigration status after pulling him over for speeding and noticing 20 people in van defendant was driving.

    police officers who handcuffed gang member while executing search warrant for weapons, did not violate rights asking about immigration status. even when officers have no basis for suspecting individual, they may ask questions; examine individual's identification; and ask to search luggage.

    i could go on and on, but you get the idea.

    people whose legal opinion matters wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    When the law first came out, a law enforcement officer could ask for the person(s) papers if they had reasonable suspicion which many argued would cause discrimination because..well..what would be considered reasonable suspicion? They *edited* the bill about a week later stating that the officer could only ask for the person(s) paper only if they did not have identification on them. I personally don't have a problem with the bill but others argue that the bill takes the wrong approach solving the illegal immigration problem and only encourages discrimination against the Mexican community.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Only Problem I See Is

    It Does Not Go Into Effect For 65 More Days

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I would like to know if someone can tell the difference between a documented latino and an undocumented latino?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    It should apply to every state, not just AZ.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    no problem. But if they don't have an ID they will be detained.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    the one and only thing wrong with it---

    IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER.....period

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.