A Court Challenge to Arizona’s Immigration Law
count on legal guild professionals to get it wrong.
Arizona, it appears, will have to defend its new immigration-enforcement law in federal court.
A coalition of interest groups, including the ACLU, has launched a legal challenge to Arizona’s new immigration law, arguing that it both invites racial profiling and is unconstitutional.
[...]
The Friendly House complaint makes several charges.One is that immigration is the job of the federal government, and the federal government alone. SB1070 violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the lawyers argue, by setting up a state-level immigration-law and enforcement regime, where immigration is a federal matter. Citizenship verification entails adherence to a complex set of federal statutes, the plaintiffs argue, and this is the federal government’s responsibility, not that of state law enforcers. So when an AZ law enforcer, for instance, is empowered to detain people for the purpose of verifying citizenship, that too is unconstitutional, the complaint argues. [...]
stupendously wrong — so wrong that it’s multi-layered backward.
as i’ve written, there is no constitutionally delegated power for the feds to do fuckall with immigration. worse, they’re shamelessly invoking the supremacy clause when 1) all federal immigration law is via the tenth amendment unconstitutional, and 2) the supremacy clause is not a general prohibition of duplicate or even more constrictive “law”, as should be obvious from these same types of fuckers lauding tyrannical california and its “environmental” “laws” that are far more restrictive than federal “law”. nah, this is a pro anti-white stretch maneuver from lovers of pet flavors of tyranny. usual story.
they got something dead right though:
[...] The complaint also states that SB1070 encourages racial profiling and warrantless seizures that violate probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, because law enforcers are compelled to make decisions and take actions based on an “unworkable” standard of “reasonable suspicion.” [...]
amen to that. the only logical result of requiring immigrants to carry and present papers on demand is that everyone must carry papers and present them on demand — or be fucked. this needs to be explained? fuck off, all supporters of this AZ disaster. being anti “illegal immigration” doesn’t make righteous every scheme you pull from your loathsome asses. it’s just more incursion by badged criminals into fucking everyone for daring to remain silent and “uncooperative”.
i have a transcript of a “criminal” trial in which i represented myself, where the judge essentially admits that the “cooperation” dance played out in myriad trials daily across the goonited state_ is an immaterial dodge meant to enshrine obedience to badged pigs without it being enshrined in “law”. if you think the average uniformed criminal won’t attempt to fuck you for remaining silent and refusing to do the “papers please” shimmy, you’re either ignorant or an obsessive obeyer. adding to that poor status this “documents if there’s reasonable suspicion you’re in the country illegally” schpilff… well, fuck it. that’s nowhere but worse for all but the obedience fetishists, who crave lying on their backs, legs splayed, sucking cop sole with religious intensity.