What makes you think it deserves “strict scrutiny”? Arizona is trying to protect itself from invading foreigners because the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty to defend the states from foreign invasion.
This act is a legitimate exercize of state police power, and it has a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
The federal government won’t do its job so Zero, Pelousy and Dingy Harry can either chalk their noses or step the hell back from the pool table.
Zero can play Lincoln if he wants, and it looks like he’s dying to, but a minor problem he’s facing is that `his’ Army trusts him about as much as most of the north, south, east and western parts of this country, as well as the SCOTUS.
I don’t see how a law enforcement officer formulates the probable cause necessary to begin to ascertain if someone is in the state illegally.
How does that happen? Run me through the possible steps. Give me a hypothetical situation.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny+Test
“Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.
Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.”