Is the Arizona Immigration Law Unconstitutional?

The facts as reported and purported by the Obama administration and the media run counter to the truth. Despite what the president claims, AZ law will not allow "families going out for ice cream to be harassed."

Let's examine some facts regarding the newly signed Arizona immigration law.

UPDATE: SB1070 with the pertinent changes made by the Conference Engrossed HB2162. BLUE text indicates the original language of SB1070 and GREEN text denotes changes made by HB2162.
Click here to read Arizona law SB 1070.

Click here for more reading about opposition to the law.

Is the Arizona immigration law unconstitutional?

It is a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry immigration documentation. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime pre-dating World War II.

The new law prohibits law enforcement officers from considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.

SB 1070 makes it clear that law enforcement may be sued if not acting in good faith. Additionally, Governor Brewer issued an executive order to implement further training and protocols for the police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued.

There is existing case law allowing state and local police to enforce federal immigration law.

In 2001, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 'that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws' and that federal law as currently written does nothing 'to displace state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.'

The Court further observed, 'Federal law evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.'

A cursory search will reveal additional case law covering related matters. A commonality is legal contact prior to immigration inquires and enforcement; subsequent court rulings trend favorably on behalf of reasonable police contact.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer reveals additional facts about the law

1. Law enforcement cannot randomly ask anyone about their immigration status, there must first be reasonable suspicion prior to lawful contact.

2. A person's race or skin color cannot cause the 'reasonable suspicion,' it must be a behavioral action, such as evading the police or violating a law. Racial profiling is explicitly prohibited in the new law.

3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a constitutional manner.

Americans boycotting Arizona

Protestors are urging Major League Baseball to take the All-Star Game from Phoenix. San Francisco is attempting to legally boycott and issue travel bans against AZ. Denver is also calling for similar boycotts against Arizona.

Prohibiting Americans from legally dealing with other Americans is somehow constitutionally sound?

Mexican President Calderon warned of strained relations with Arizona and economic hardships for that American state. Meanwhile, Mexico heavily enforces its own immigration laws.

If an American enters Mexico illegally they are charged with a felony and face two-years in a Mexican jail. If that same American tries it again, he or she will face up to 10-years in prison.

Interesting enough there are no boycotts called against Mexico.

Napolitano of Homeland Security and US Attorney Holder are critical of Arizona's policy to request id and the Obama administration threatens to fight the state law.

If Arizona rancher Robert Krantz had the same concern from his country's leadership than those breaking in has, he may be alive today. Instead, Mr. Krantz suffered the ultimate denial of his constitutional and human rights, the right to live.

Sources:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer%2F100505