5th lawsuit filed to fight Arizona immigration law

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Alia Beard Rau -

The Arizona Republic

A group of 14 civil and immigrant-rights organizations and 10 individuals on Monday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law.

It is the fifth legal challenge of the law, which goes into effect July 29 and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. All the lawsuits seek to prevent the law from going into effect. However, this latest case names Arizona's county officials as defendants, while previous suits were filed against state officials.

Participants in this case include the American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Immigration Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

"We are filing the most comprehensive and far-reaching challenge to the Arizona law," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This is the most extreme and dangerous of all the recent state and local laws purporting to deal with immigrant issues, and it has triggered outrage and opposition from virtually every segment of society."

The law states that an officer engaged in a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" must, when "practicable," ask about a person's legal status when "reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Guttentag said the law turns "show me your papers" into the Arizona state motto. He said the lawsuit alleges the law violates the federal supremacy clause, equal-protection clause, due process, Fourth Amendment, First Amendment and others.

Nina Perales, with the Southwest Regional Counsel of the MALDEF, said the law will lead to racial profiling of Latinos "and anyone else the police suspect looks or sounds foreign born."

"Police are put in an impossible situation because an officer cannot form reasonable suspicion of an individual's immigration status just by looking at that person," Perales said. "Police will be forced to investigate based on skin color, the language they speak or the type of people with whom they are standing."

She said the plaintiffs in the case include a 70-year-old U.S. citizen who has been pulled over twice the past two months and asked for his papers, as well as a U.S. citizen and college student from New Mexico who is concerned that his driver's license won't be acceptable proof of citizenship under the law. New Mexico does not require proof of citizenship in order to get a license.

The law states that an individual may present one of the following documents to police to prove they are in the country legally: Arizona driver's license; Arizona identification card; a tribal-enrollment card; any federal, state or local government-issued ID from an entity that requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing the ID.

New Mexico does not require proof of legal presence in the country in order to get a license.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, said his group is participating because the law "truly makes racial profiling a state policy."

Other lawsuits have been filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Tucson Officer Martin Escobar, Phoenix Officer David Salgado and Roberto Javier Frisancho a naturalized citizen and Washington, D.C., resident who plans to visit Arizona as part of his research on the Chandler roundup of illegal immigrants in 1997.

The Tucson, Flagstaff and San Luis city councils have voted to sue as well, although none has yet filed.

Lawsuit plaintiffs

The latest lawsuit filed in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law includes 14 civil and immigration rights organizations and 10 individuals. Here are some of them (those listed as Jane or John Doe were not included):

• Jim Shee: U.S.-born 70-year-old of Spanish and Chinese descent says he already has been stopped twice by local law enforcement in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers."

• Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa: New Mexico resident attending Arizona State University who worries that because New Mexico does not require proof of legal status to get a license, he could be detained for not carrying an acceptable proof of citizenship under the new Arizona law.

• Andrew Anderson: A citizen of Jamaica living in Phoenix who has permission from the U.S. Immigration Court to stay in the U.S., but no documentation other than the court document to prove that.

• Vicki Gaubeca: A U.S. citizen born in Mexico and now lives in New Mexico. She often travels to Arizona and also is concerned about whether her New Mexico license is sufficient proof of citizenship.

• C.M.: A 15-year-old high school freshman who lives in Gilbert and is originally from Haiti. Due to the earthquake, she was granted temporary protected status in the United States. She does not carry documents proving she has permission to be in the U.S.

• Luz Santiago: A U.S. citizen and pastor of a Mesa church where the majority of her congregation is in the country illegally. She regularly transports and shelters illegal immigrants for various church-related purposes.

• Jose Angel Vargas: A lawful permanent U.S. resident living in Phoenix who speaks Spanish fluently but not English and regularly solicits work in public places as a day laborer.

• Friendly House: A Phoenix non-profit that offers social services such as workforce training.

• Services Employees International Union: A Washington, D.C.-based union with 2.2 million members.

• Services Employees International Union Local 5: The Arizona branch of the union, which has 1,800 members.

• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union: Washington, D.C.-based union with 1.3 million members.

• Arizona South Asians for Safe Families: A Scottsdale-based group that offers support to victims of domestic violence in the South Asian community in Arizona.

• Southside Presbyterian Church: A Tucson church that also serves the homeless and day laborers.

• Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: Association of Latino-owned businesses throughout the state.

• Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona A group of more than 90 Asian-owned businesses.

• Border Action Network: A state group that advocates for protecting the human rights of immigrants and border communities.

• Tonatierra Community Development Institute: A Phoenix non-profit group that serves the indigenous community, including members of the American Indian tribes.

• Muslim American Society: A charitable, religious, social, cultural and educational organization that works to protect the civil rights of American Muslims.

• Japanese American Citizens League: A San Francisco-based group that works to advance the civil rights of Japanese Americans.

• Valle del Sol: A Maricopa County non-profit group that offers behavioral health and social services.

• Coalicíon De Derechos Humanos: A Tucson community-service organization that promotes human rights in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

http://www.azcentral...aw-lawsuit.html

[Pooky 3,877]

"We are filing the most comprehensive and far-reaching challenge to the Arizona law," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This is the most extreme and dangerous of all the recent state and local laws purporting to deal with immigrant issues, and it has triggered outrage and opposition from virtually every segment of society."

Except the 60-70% or so of the American population who support the AZ proposal.

Their outrage is saved for those who would offer succor to those from a foreign nation on American soil illegally over American citizens and those here legally.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

New Mexico does not require proof of legal presence in the country in order to get a license.

maybe new mexico should realize they are part of the problem.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Fight all you want. The AZ law closely mirrors fed law. It will not be struck down.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The ACLU is proving their scum side once again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The ACLU is proving their scum side once again.

U.S. Supreme Court

PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

457 U.S. 202 PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-1538.

Argued December 1, 1981

Decided June 15, 1982 *

Held:

A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

• (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
  

• (b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. [457 U.S. 202, 203] The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.

• © The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 224-226.
  

• (d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Pp. 227-230.
  

No. 80-1538, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 242.

http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=457&invol=202

Edited May 18, 2010 by El Buscador

[Obama 2012 1,714]

U.S. Supreme Court

PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

457 U.S. 202 PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-1538.

Argued December 1, 1981

Decided June 15, 1982 *

Held:

A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

• (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
  

• (b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. [457 U.S. 202, 203] The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.

• © The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 224-226.
  

• (d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Pp. 227-230.
  

No. 80-1538, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 242.

http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=457&invol=202

What's your point?

The fact that a court rules for illegals to be able to legally STEAL from the American taxpayers?

Hell, INS at the time should have grabbed the kids after the trial and deported them and their scum parents.

The ACLU still has no case here, as "equal protection" doesn't apply to the Arizona law as the only way they can challenge Arizona law, is to challenge Federal law.

Every aspect of the Arizona law is very much legal and only some activist ** would rule otherwise.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The ACLU still has no case here, as "equal protection" doesn't apply to the Arizona law as the only way they can challenge Arizona law, is to challenge Federal law.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the "reasonable suspicion," qualifier in SB1070 because there are no reasonable ways in which local law enforcement might suspect someone to be here illegally beyond actually witnessing someone crossing into the U.S. unlawfully.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the "reasonable suspicion," qualifier in SB1070 because there are no reasonable ways in which local law enforcement might suspect someone to be here illegally beyond actually witnessing someone crossing into the U.S. unlawfully.

When will you understand and admitt that they shouldn't be here, have no right to be here and have no standing to insist that they be granted the advantages of those here legaly? Why do you cheerlead for lawbreakers? They should be denied jobs, services and protections other than a ticket home.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the "reasonable suspicion," qualifier in SB1070 because there are no reasonable ways in which local law enforcement might suspect someone to be here illegally beyond actually witnessing someone crossing into the U.S. unlawfully.

You really cannot be this ignorant?

It's simple:

Duck A - Has No ID

Officer asks Duck A for name/address

Officer looks up Duck A's information in the system.

Duck A has no information in the system.

Officer arrests Duck A just as he would any Duck without proper ID and lying about their name.

It's all equal, no matter what your 'status' is.

[jimnlena 8]

Ever wonder why the majority is portrayed as minority by the press???

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You really cannot be this ignorant?

It's simple:

Duck A - Has No ID

Officer asks Duck A for name/address

Officer looks up Duck A's information in the system.

Duck A has no information in the system.

Officer arrests Duck A just as he would any Duck without proper ID and lying about their name.

It's all equal, no matter what your 'status' is.

Oh my! You do realize that if you give your name and address, you might not show up in their system unless you've been living at that address for a while.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh my! You do realize that if you give your name and address, you might not show up in their system unless you've been living at that address for a while.

Yeah and you'd be detained until they can identify you no matter who you are....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yeah and you'd be detained until they can identify you no matter who you are....

only when "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" are present, otherwise you ask if your under arrest, they say no and you leave.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Sousuke

[Obama 2012 1,714]

only when "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" are present, otherwise you ask if your under arrest, they say no and you leave.

they can arrest you when they pull you over for speeding or any other convictable offense.

They aren't just going to let you go without identifying you.

If you cannot be identified, you will be detained. Which they can legally do for 24 hours without arresting you.