LETTER: Reading the immigration law

Commentary's picture
01:52 AM
May 27
2010

Rufus Sanders’ May 24 commentary on the Arizona Immigration Law, while compassionate and emotional, is misguided.
Reading the law, some interesting facts come to play that contradict Mr. Sanders’ argument:
-- Section 1 gives state and local entities legal enforcement.
-- Section 2 revises a given state statute, which includes: limiting state and local agencies as to not go beyond federal laws, allowing investigation of illegal presence only when an officer is making a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, and finally requiring implementation consistent with federal laws and protection of the civil rights of all while respecting privileges and immunities of U.S .citizens.
-- Section 3, part C states that law enforcement may not consider race, color or national origin as a factor except where permitted by the U.S. or Arizona constitution.
-- Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 amend state statute regarding smuggling and hiring practices. Ironically, then-governor Janet Napolitano backed a 2007 Arizona law punishing businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
-- Section 6 addresses arrest without warrant. Nowhere in the five sub-parts of part A does it mention stopping anyone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant (as Mr. Sanders pointed out). However, terms and conditions such as felony, misdemeanor, traffic accident, probable cause, and public offense are those specifically mentioned.
-- Section 10 enforces vehicle impoundment by authorities under the following conditions: revocation of driving privileges, no valid drivers license, interlock device violation, transportation of illegal aliens in violation of current laws. Don’t we have similar laws here in Ohio?
Upon reading the law, one easily could deduce Arizona is doing the federal government a favor by helping improve the enforcement of already-established laws. If there is any constitutional challenge, it could be due to the lack of precedence. But that may not be a valid argument since the original intent is to cooperate with federal law.
Jeff Kerst
Sandusky