Arizona Seeks to End Illegal Immigration Slavery

The new Arizona law, making it a violation of state law to have entered the US illegally is based on the following law and case law.

(a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(1)to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

Implied Authority (from the INA training handbook)

a. Implies authority is the authority to act, although it is not specifically stated in statue. For example INA 287(a)(1) gives authority to interrogate without a warrant any alien or person that is believed to be an alien about their rights to be or remain in the US. There is no mention of an authority to stop that alien. However, it is implied the officer must first stop that alien to interrogate that alien.

Yes, the above law makes it quite clear that law enforcement can now contact any person who's legal residency is in doubt. It appears to many to have racist overtones and is an open invitation to racial profiling; or is it? The truth is, INA 287(a)(1) is the federal authority given to ICE agents to detain and question suspected illegal aliens.

One of the most often quoted complaints, is the new state law violates the 4th Amendment protections of unreasonable search and seizure (seizure including one personage) and the 14th Amendment of Due Process and Equal protection; i.e. profiling. This argument however is moot, as the federal authority has already passed Constitutional scrutiny. The usual profiling argument is mitigated by the legal standing that profiling and/or racism does not exist, if race is simply one element of an investigation, and not the sole reason. However, in an effort to address such fears, the writers of the Arizona law went further to guarantee these protections by including the wording, The attorney general or city attorney shall not investigate complaints that are solely based on race, color or national origin.

One has to ask, what part of the law is so overreaching, when the federal enforcement officers already have the same powers. Much has also been made of the necessity of those contacted and detained for investigation to provide proof of legal residency; this has been compared by some as similar to fascist Germany oppression of the Jews, regardless of the fact that federal law has always mandated temporary residents keep their immigration identification on their persons at all times. The Left of course, like to use Nazi comparatives when ever they can, regardless that they are the constant purveyors of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and continue to show their disdain for the Jewish people by setting the bar so low, that the holocaust is now their moral equivalent of a jurisdictional argument.

The opponents of this law continue to try color it as repressive by saying, "The law would require the police 'when practicable' to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization" (NY Times). The description implies that the law allows a detention based solely on "reasonable suspicion" of being in the US illegally, which is false. The law states that a lawful contact must take place prior to any detention based on "reasonable suspicion". The prior description also gives the false impression that the Police will be pulling over Hispanics without 'probable cause' to check their immigration status. However, again the law states, Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.

In the strangest of description, the AP says, It "would make it a crime under state law to be in the US illegally"; You think? This silly description explains the outcry against this law better than anything else I have seen, as it describes illegal immigrants from the US southern border as a protected class. The purpose of this is can only be to maintain the status quo so the Left can continue to use illegal immigrants as pawns in their progressive agenda. Far from being compassionate, maintaining an illegal immigrant protected class guarantees the maintenance of an underclass, where the left has become the new slave masters, while they accuse the Right of racism.

From the New American, "While, in general, our federal government tends to interject itself into many areas not specifically authorized by the Constitution (which is, itself, a violation of the Tenth Amendment) preventing illegal immigration is one area where the document does assign responsibility to Washington. Article IV, Section 4. of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”