Thread: Three UCSD Law Professors Say Arizona Law is Constitutional

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...3655b4465.html

REGION: Three UCSD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
Controversial immigration law violates civil rights, critics say

StoryDiscussionBy EDWARD SIFUENTES - esifuentes@nctimes.com | Posted: May 13, 2010 7:44 pm | 1 Comment | Print

Font Sizeefault font sizeLarger font size.
Immigrant rights activist Enrique Morones speaks during a UCSD panel discussion Thursday on whether Arizona's new immigration law is constitutional. (Staff photo by Edward Sifuentes) .
..Arizona's controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three UC San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on the university's campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona's law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person's immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at UCSD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

"I don't see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy," Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government's failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

"The problem is the application of the law," said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. "On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race."

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

"Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course," he said. "Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional."

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person's immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person's status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person's apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

"I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced," Schwarzschild said. "But it certainly doesn't, on its face."

Wow! Quoting some people who have actually read the US Constitution! Fantastic!

So, in civil law, I wonder what the damages are to a state hurt with boycotts based on lies, slander, libel and false accusations? It would seem to me that a state has the right to sue the City of San Francisco, the City of Los Angeles, the San Diego Unified School Board, the MLB players, MALDEF, LULAC, ACLU, National Council of La Raza, Mexico, Congresscritters, Obama, Eric Holder, and so many others for making false unfounded accusations for the sole purpose of disrupting trade and causing economic harm to the state of Arizona.

I assume the amount of the damages are the total actual damages x 3 for deceptive trade practices plus a sizable punitive damage to teach the lesson and attorney's fees of course. That could amount to one hell of pile of money for Arizona.

I hope some smart lawyers pursue such a damage claim, because they certainly should. It's time people put their money where their mouths are.