The Arizona Immigration Law is fair and reasonable

1. I have yet to hear a call for a boycott of Arizona that made an accurate reference to the Arizona law that is at issue. The law at issue is Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as revised by House Bill 2162 (aka HB 2162). The full text of the law is http://www.keytlaw.com.... The new Arizona law takes effect on July 29, 2010. It will require that if someone is stopped by police for other legal reasons, and the person also presents other legal reasons for doubting their citizenship status, that the police must then check citizenship status with the Federal Authorities. The exact wording includes: "For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following: 1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification." What this amounts to is that if a person cannot show identification when stopped for a crime, law enforcement must check that person's citizenship. 2. Federal law allows federal authorities to demand a persons ID without any reason, and the Federal law has been tested in the Courts and found to be Constitutional. http://vodpod.com... The state law is considerably less intrusive, since it demands a legal reason for the initial stop and specifically excludes racial profiling. It is not unreasonable to ask people stopped for other legal reasons to provide identification. 3. It would be unreasonable for any state to have an immigration law that contradicts Federal law. The Arizona law does not do that; it is within Federal law. The Supreme Court agrees that consistent state laws are permissible. "Brennan in his opinion for the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982) acknowledged that "the States do have some authority to act with respect to illegal aliens, at least where such action mirrors federal objectives and furthers a legitimate state goal." http://jurist.org... there is Federal law against bank robbery; that does not preclude states from having laws against bank robbery, nor should it. Note, however, that this debate is not about whether there is some legal technicality in the Arizona law in conflict with Federal law. It is about whether the Arizona Law is fair and reasonable. 4. The Federal government has not adequately enforced immigration laws nor compensated state for the expenses resulting from that failure. That has led to significant costs to the lawful citizens of Arizona. "Analysis of the latest Census data indicates that Arizona's illegal immigrant population is costing the state's taxpayers about $1.3 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to about $1.3 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden borne by Arizonans amounts to more than $700 per household headed by a native-born resident." http://www.fairus.org... It is therefore fair and reasonable that Arizona seek to enforce the law that would reduce their cost. 5. Finally, the Arizona Law is a mechanism to draw attention to the government's failure to provide border security and to provide relief to the State. It has already produced a token response. Obama has sent 1200 National Guardsmen to help enforcement. The Guardsmen will just be pushing paper, but it is something. ================= President Obama showed his woeful ignorance of the Arizona law, saying "'You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ...' the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com... That's beyond merely being false, it is absolute nonsense. The Arizona law is fair and reasonable.