“...authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
I don’t like this.”
I can understand your concern and, as a practical matter I don’t like the prospect of removing illegal aliens “by the seat of their pants” anymore than anyone relishes the thought of running off trespassers.
And as a legal matter, this site and its members take pride in supporting the Constitution over political ends.
So does the Arizona statute violate the 5th (due process) or 14th (equal protection of the laws, all persons) amendments to the US Constitution?
The Democrats, Obama, Sotomeyer, et al. will argue that those amendments should be interpreted to mean that any state action against “undocumented immigrants” is subject to a ‘strict scrutiny’ test, so that the state must show a compelling reason(s) for the action.
I submit to you that the legislation bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in attempting to identify and deport illegal aliens, so that all the state has to do is to show a legitimate exercize of the state’s police power in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of Arizona residents.
If the test were the former, and not the latter, approximately 20-30% of all the inmates of state prisons in the southwest would not be latinos/chicanos/Mexicans (whatever they are demanding to be called this year) consuming the substance of Americans as public charges of the states of Arizona, California and the rest.
Here’s another question. Someone posted the text of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act earlier in the thread, so apparently a law like this is already on the books. How does the AZ law differ from this one, and if something very like it exists, how can it be declared unconstitutional? (Bearing in mind, I’m not an attorney, just a curious citizen...)