Posted on 05/14/2010 4:00:54 PM PDT by SantaLuz
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nctimes.com ...
Ping!
Oooohhh, I want one of these...!
Man, why didn’t this happen when I was in college?
But did they read the law . . .
snicker.
IMO, the Constitution was written is such clear and plain language that any citizen should be able to understand what it means. We shouldn’t have to pay lawyers tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to interpret it for us.
But that’s just me.
I say lawyers are unconstitutional.
“...more perfect union...”
Voila.
That’s why “constitutional law experts” crack me up.
It ain’t long and it ain’t complicated and if somebody says it says something and it doesn’t, they’re probably wrong.
Being an expert on the menu at Denny’s is more intellectual challenging.
They have something called a "Law and Society Minor" for undergrads. Basically Community College law. LOL!
LOL. Really.
University of San Diego has a law school. It is a Catholic university in San Diego.
University of California at San Diego is part of the state-run UC system. It does not have a law school. However, it happens to be located in the neighborhood of San Diego called La Jolla, which is apparently where this Institute is that the three professors spoke at.
This is more than enough to confuse the average journalist.
Lawrence Alexander teaches at University of San Diego School of Law, not UC San Diego.
One step above high school civics teacher.
The University of San Diego is a private institution with a law school:
it’s not UCSD
Good post.
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.
Why do we need SCOTUS? A Dr. in Hawaii declares Barry Soetoro a "Natural Born Citizen." These CA guys declare the AZ Law constitutional.
It seems to me that these fellows and ladies are just doing the jobs American judges won't do.
Wrong, Gringo. The Méxicans Rob'em, Rape'em, and Rip'em off every foot of the way between Guatemala and the US Border. It's a corrupt pass-through operation.
The gringo equivalent would be to beat up illegals, rob them and worse, and then put them on a freight train to Canada with no food or water.
“I honestly don’t know how you guys in the Southwest and Mountain West deal with all of them.”
As a 62 year old SoCal native, I have lived with friends and relatives that have hispanic backgrounds, that are native born citizens, vets, homeowners, business people like all of the rest of us.
For people in regions with few “latinos” it may be startling to start seeing folks that are “different” but here, they aren’t different.
Give me a few minutes with someone, and I can usually (but not always) pin them down as American born, or not.
I don’t like illegal immigration. My wife is the daughter of a naturalized Italian immigrant. Her entire family is against illegal immigration.
Shut it off at the benefit office and at the employers, and that leaves the border, which has been lax for all of time.
Neither party has shut it off at the employer. Plenty of time and opportunity, but little to no results.
The Reagan Amnesty left a gaping hole with document verification.
Oh, really???
SO WHAT????
Just as many or even more legal experts say it is Constitutional and most Americans and Arizonans support it. end of argument.
I would think it leaves the feds vulnerable to a writ of mandamus, a court order requiring the relevant agencies to do their job. Further failure would constitute contempt of court. Of course given how malleable and corrupt the Law is these days, anything can happen.
Friend, before jumping in half-cocked, if you understood what I wrote, I am talking in terms of economics. The central americans see mexico as better to earn a livng and go there illegally to work, just as the mexicans view the US as better to work and go there illegally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.