Thread: ACLU, NAACP sued Arizona on SB 1070

Rights groups sue over SB 1070
ACLU, NAACP among those fighting Arizona immigration law
62 commentsby Alia Beard Rau - May. 17, 2010 09:10 AM
The Arizona Republic

ACLU and other national civil-rights organizations on Monday sued in federal court about the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law.

The group involves 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. They allege that the law "encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values."

Theirs is the fifth lawsuit challenging the law, which is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

Other lawsuits have been filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Tucson Officer Martin Escobar, Phoenix Officer David Salgado and Roberto Javier Frisancho, a naturalized citizen and Washington, D.C., resident who plans to visit Arizona as part of his research on the Chandler roundup of illegal immigrants in 1997.

The Tucson, Flagstaff and San Luis city councils have voted to sue as well, although none has yet filed. San Luis City Attorney Glenn Gimbut said the law is contradictory and could place San Luis on risky legal ground.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/pina ... z0oFUcoVPc


http://www.azcentral.com/community/pina ... naacp.html

5th lawsuit filed to fight Arizona immigration law
161 commentsby Alia Beard Rau - May. 17, 2010 11:05 AM
The Arizona Republic

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.

"We are filing the most comprehensive and far-reaching challenge to the Arizona law," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This is the most extreme and dangerous of all the recent state and local laws purporting to deal with immigrant issues, and it has triggered outrage and opposition from virtually every segment of society."

The law states that an officer engaged in a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" must, when "practicable," ask about a person's legal status when "reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Guttentag said the law turns "show me your papers" into the Arizona state motto. He said the lawsuit alleges the law violates the federal supremacy clause, equal-protection clause, due process, Fourth Amendment, First Amendment and others.

Nina Perales, with the Southwest Regional Counsel of the MALDEF, said the law will lead to racial profiling of Latinos "and anyone else the police suspect looks or sounds foreign born."

"Police are put in an impossible situation because an officer cannot form reasonable suspicion of an individual's immigration status just by looking at that person," Perales said. "Police will be forced to investigate based on skin color, the language they speak or the type of people with whom they are standing."

She said the plaintiffs in the case include a 70-year-old U.S. citizen who has been pulled over twice the past two months and asked for his papers, as well as a U.S. citizen and college student from New Mexico who is concerned that his driver's license won't be acceptable proof of citizenship under the law. New Mexico does not require proof of citizenship in order to get a license.

The law states that an individual may present one of the following documents to police to prove they are in the country legally: Arizona driver's license; Arizona identification card; a tribal-enrollment card; any federal, state or local government-issued ID from an entity that requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing the ID.

New Mexico does not require proof of legal presence in the country in order to get a license.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, said his group is participating because the law "truly makes racial profiling a state policy."

Other lawsuits have been filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Tucson Officer Martin Escobar, Phoenix Officer David Salgado and Roberto Javier Frisancho a naturalized citizen and Washington, D.C., resident who plans to visit Arizona as part of his research on the Chandler roundup of illegal immigrants in 1997.

The Tucson, Flagstaff and San Luis city councils have voted to sue as well, although none has yet filed.


Lawsuit plaintiffs

The latest lawsuit filed in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law includes 14 civil and immigration rights organizations and 10 individuals. Here are some of them (those listed as Jane or John Doe were not included):

• Jim Shee: U.S.-born 70-year-old of Spanish and Chinese descent says he already has been stopped twice by local law enforcement in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers."

• Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa: New Mexico resident attending Arizona State University who worries that because New Mexico does not require proof of legal status to get a license, he could be detained for not carrying an acceptable proof of citizenship under the new Arizona law.

• Andrew Anderson: A citizen of Jamaica living in Phoenix who has permission from the U.S. Immigration Court to stay in the U.S., but no documentation other than the court document to prove that.

• Vicki Gaubeca: A U.S. citizen born in Mexico and now lives in New Mexico. She often travels to Arizona and also is concerned about whether her New Mexico license is sufficient proof of citizenship. • C.M.: A 15-year-old high school freshman who lives in Gilbert and is originally from Haiti. Due to the earthquake, she was granted temporary protected status in the United States. She does not carry documents proving she has permission to be in the U.S.

• Luz Santiago: A U.S. citizen and pastor of a Mesa church where the majority of her congregation is in the country illegally. She regularly transports and shelters illegal immigrants for various church-related purposes.

• Jose Angel Vargas: A lawful permanent U.S. resident living in Phoenix who speaks Spanish fluently but not English and regularly solicits work in public places as a day laborer.

• Friendly House: A Phoenix non-profit that offers social services such as workforce training.

• Services Employees International Union: A Washington, D.C.-based union with 2.2 million members.

• Services Employees International Union Local 5: The Arizona branch of the union, which has 1,800 members.

• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union: Washington, D.C.-based union with 1.3 million members.

• Arizona South Asians for Safe Families: A Scottsdale-based group that offers support to victims of domestic violence in the South Asian community in Arizona.

• Southside Presbyterian Church: A Tucson church that also serves the homeless and day laborers.

• Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: Association of Latino-owned businesses throughout the state.

• Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona A group of more than 90 Asian-owned businesses.

• Border Action Network: A state group that advocates for protecting the human rights of immigrants and border communities.

• Tonatierra Community Development Institute: A Phoenix non-profit group that serves the indigenous community, including members of the American Indian tribes.

• Muslim American Society: A charitable, religious, social, cultural and educational organization that works to protect the civil rights of American Muslims.

• Japanese American Citizens League: A San Francisco-based group that works to advance the civil rights of Japanese Americans.

• Valle del Sol: A Maricopa County non-profit group that offers behavioral health and social services.

• CoalicÃ*on De Derechos Humanos: A Tucson community-service organization that promotes human rights in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ ... z0oFVznAPA

Panel of experts outline how Arizona immigration law works
Scenarios illustrate how opinions differ
378 commentsby Alia Beard Rau - May. 17, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Much of the debate around Arizona's new immigration law is focused on the moment when a law-enforcement officer can or should ask about a person's legal status.

The law states that an officer engaged in a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" must, when "practicable," ask about a person's legal status when "reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the U.S. illegally.


What that may mean in real life has spurred concerns, warnings of racial profiling and statements defending law enforcement's ability to do its job fairly - all before the law has gone into effect. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the law's constitutionality, and attorneys want the court to delay the law's July 29 implementation until a judge rules.

The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board is beginning a training program to teach officers how to enforce the law. That program - and how officers put it into action - will likely offer answers about what the law will mean to Arizonans.

The Republic asked a panel of lawmakers, police and legal experts to address a few key issues that have raised controversy and then consider several scenarios to see how those concepts might play out.

Asking the question

The first issue: When can a law-enforcement officer ask a person about legal status? Can a person be stopped to ask that question? Or does "lawful stop, detention or arrest" during the "enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town" mean that question can only follow a completely separate reason for being stopped?

Three of the five panelists said suspicion that a person might not be here legally is not reason to stop the person.

"What does an illegal alien look like? What does a person look like that has two rocks of crack cocaine in their pocket?" asked Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. "No one can tell by looking. There first needs to be conduct that is connected with suspicious or criminal activity."

Three panelists said the initial reason for the contact must stem from some other suspected violation, such as speeding, drinking alcohol in a city park or, for juveniles, violating curfew.

Others say that it's not that clear-cut.

Lynn Marcus, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, said nothing prevents an officer from engaging someone in a conversation about immigration status at any time. But she also said the person is not required to answer the question, based on the Fifth Amendment.


Reasonable suspicion

The second issue: What does "reasonable suspicion" mean to a police officer?

The law has been clarified to state that race, color or national origin cannot be considered "except to the extent permitted" by the U.S. and state constitutions.

Spencer said reasonable suspicion could include an admission of being in the country illegally, having fake identification, having foreign identification without a visa or U.S. immigration documentation, or having no identification.

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative and an attorney who opposes the law, said the law does not state what officers can consider when determining reasonable suspicion, which opens the door to broad interpretation and the potential for racial profiling.

"Arizona courts describe (reasonable suspicion) as requiring only a minimal, objective justification based on the totality of circumstances," she said. "These can include such basic factors as a person's conduct or appearance, the characteristics of the area, the time of day and the experience of the officer."

How would scenario play out under law?

Scenario: At 9 on a weekday evening, a police officer comes across three men ages 18 or 19 playing basketball in a south Phoenix neighborhood park. The neighborhood has a large illegal-immigrant population. All three appear to be Latino. There have been no recent crimes or complaints that might be connected to these three men. The men are wearing torn T-shirts, shorts and basketball shoes. They have no identification with them.

• Question: Can the officer approach the men and ask them their legal status?
John Kavanagh: No. Nor could the officer approach them for any other law-enforcement reason, assuming the park is still open to the public. They are doing nothing that is illegal or even suspicious.

To be contacted, they would have to be observed committing an unlawful act (other than being in the U.S. illegally). Even then, additional facts that create a "reasonable suspicion" they are here illegally would have to be present before the officer could question them about their immigration status.

Andy Silverman: A police officer can talk to anyone he or she wants to and ask them anything. The issue is whether the person is free to go. If the person is not accused or suspected of a crime, they should be free to go and thus not answer the question. If the police officer has a legitimate criminal reason to detain the person, then of course they are not free to go.

A person doesn't need to answer any question by a police officer whether detained or not except maybe their name - that is, people have a right not to incriminate themselves or answer questions from a law-enforcement officer.

Kyrsten Sinema: The new law does not prohibit the officer from questioning the men about their status. Reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of circumstances and can include a person's conduct or appearance, characteristics of the area and time of day.

The new law does not give guidelines that define what police can use in deciding who to question about immigration status.

Mark Spencer: No. There is no suspicious conduct and the law presumes everyone is in the country legally.

The officer could question the men if there was suspicious or criminal conduct (i.e. calls complaining about fighting, urinating in public, odor of marijuana, etc.) along with reasonable suspicion to being in the country illegally. Even with suspicious or criminal conduct, the person contacted is presumed to be a citizen.

• Question: If the officer did approach and ask for identification, can the officer accept their word that they are legal citizens when they have no identification?
John Kavanagh: The boys do not have to prove their legal status.

Given that this situation does not even create reasonable suspicion to legally question them about any initial offense needed to trigger immigration status questioning, this encounter should not even be taking place.
Andy Silverman: ARS 11-1051(B) (section 2 of 1070) doesn't require that the person show identification indicating their immigration status but requires the officer to verify their status with the federal government if they have reasonable suspicion they are in the U.S. unlawfully.

However, ARS 13-1509(A) (section 3 of 1070) does create a state crime if a person willfully fails to carry an alien-registration document if the person is in violation of a couple of federal statutes.
Kyrsten Sinema: The officer probably won't be able to accept their word because Senate Bill 1070 actually ties the hands of police. If the officer doesn't ask the basketball players for identification, the officer could be at risk for being sued for not enforcing the law.
Mark Spencer: Yes. The statute communicates that all people contacted are presumed to be citizens unless reasonable suspicion indicates a violation of immigration law.

• Question: If the officer does end up asking for identification and the men don't have IDs, can they be detained or arrested?
John Kavanagh: No.
Andy Silverman: The law doesn't provide for what the officer must do if he or she determines after checking with the feds the person is unlawfully in the U.S. However, a subsection provides that a police officeer "may" transport to the feds a person who they have verified is in the country unlawfully.

The issue is whether the feds need to take that person - I assume they can refuse to do so. I would assume at that point the local officer would have to release the person unless they are going to charge them with some crime under SB 1070 or some other crime.
Kyrsten Sinema: The basketball players probably can be detained or arrested. The men could be processed for deportation or voluntary removal if they do not have legal status in this country.

However, if they are legally present in the country but do not have documentation, they could be unlawfully detained by officers.
Mark Spencer: In this case, they could not be detained or arrested.

Reasonable suspicion is required for detention. Probable cause is required for arrest. The conduct in this scenario is insufficient for either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... z0oFWpomNo

I'll be looking forward to their upcoming panel on how reasonable suspicion works in the War on Drugs Laws, and given 40 years of racially profiling blacks in the United States in the War on Drugs while Caucasian Illegal Aliens run the illegal trade free as birds unimpeded, just why they've shown no concern over that since the 1970's.

Oh wait ... 40 years of evidence of actually profiling black Americans ... = $70 billion a year in taxpayer expenditures on drug law enforcement without stopping the illegal drug trade, pissing off their voters or losing their undocumented cocaine supply.

Never mind. Carry on.



www.leap.cc
www.mpp.org

I don't know about other states but in Florida if you are stopped and cannot produce your documents (Drivers License) they can and will arrest you on the spot whether you are white,black,brown or cream colored .

The opposition to AZ law is not really about Race it is about stopping the deportation of IA's. It is a sham,a farce, a lie & bad over the top hysterical acting to gain sympathy.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

I don't know about other states but in Florida if you are stopped and cannot produce your documents (Drivers License) they can and will arrest you on the spot whether you are white,black,brown or cream colored .

The opposition to AZ law is not really about Race it is about stopping the deportation of IA's. It is a sham,a farce, a lie & bad over the top hysterical acting to gain sympathy.

True, True, True.

Related

ACLU sues to stop Arizona's immigration law
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1061976.html

Originally Posted by USPatriot

I don't know about other states but in Florida if you are stopped and cannot produce your documents (Drivers License) they can and will arrest you on the spot whether you are white,black,brown or cream colored .

The opposition to AZ law is not really about Race it is about stopping the deportation of IA's. It is a sham,a farce, a lie & bad over the top hysterical acting to gain sympathy.

IF AZ succeeds, then other states might follow suit, which could result in lots of deportations. Those who benefit from illegal immigration, especially illegals themselves won't be happy campers. Hence the conflict. Some states probably fear that they may lose their illegal labor force and local tax revenue from food, cigarettes, property taxes, etc. They've really become conditioned to illegal labor and illegal alien presence as if it was all just fine. Many have figured out that it's NOT fine to absorb Mexico's poor and uneducated and sometimes the criminal elements that sneak in to sell drugs or do crimes, including fatal DUIs and murder.
The colonization by Mexico has to be curbed or it will be completely unmanageable if it's allowed to continue without consequences. It's simple logic. The U.S. cannot absorb Mexico's poor. Mexico needs to take care of its own people.