A copy of an E-mail, giving a legal opinion about Arizona's
possibly-to-be law, SB1070, as amended...

"Hey [Addressee]. The easiest way to understand a statute is to
divorce yourself from personal political convictions and just go
through the statute line by line.

Subsection A of the proposed law prohibits political subdivisions of
the state from adopting policy contrary to the State's policy of both
enforcing federal immigration law and its own criminal law.

Reasonable people can disagree on what the State's policy should be
but that is why we have elections.

It is undisputed that inferior political subdivisions of the state
must abide by decisions of the superior legislative bodies. It is hard
to argue cogently that the state legislature can not propose
legislation and if passed require that it actually be enforced.

Subsection B of the proposed law creates two threshold requirements
before an immigration inquiry can be conducted by law enforcement.
First the initial contact between law enforcement and the individual
must be lawful. This does away with concerns of random roadblocks or
traffic stops. Such stops are illegal. This law has not created any
new rights in law enforcement to initiate contact with individuals.
Secondly before any inquiry is made as to an individual's immigration
status law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion to believe the
person is illegally in the United States. How can requiring law
enforcement to investigate criminality when they have a reasonable
basis to believe criminality is afoot be considered draconian or
somehow unfair. That is actually a higher standard than they have in
initiating other criminal investigations. For instance law enforcement
officers while in legal contact with an individual can ask questions
regarding drug or alcohol use on nothing better than a desire to
question an individual.

Enforcing the law is what they are paid to do. The rule of law is not
enhanced when law enforcement is given discretion to ignore the law
based solely on political considerations. Law enforcement officers are
executive branch government officials. It's a pretty scary thing in a
free society when college students are arguing that the branch of
government that enforces the laws should also be free to make them up
to suit their own political tastes.

Subsection E allows arrest of an individual when probable cause exists
to believe he has violated an immigration law. This is no different
than any other crime. Why should it be? Probable cause is defined as a
reasonable belief that a specific crime has been committed by a
specific individual. Furthermore the bill does not require arrest. It
allows it. In a statute the words "may or "shall" are very important.
The word "may" is used here. This law clearly allows officers to
choose to summons an individual to court rather than take him/her into
custody.

Being Hispanic is not probable cause to believe someone has committed
an immigration offense. Nor does the law require an individual to
prove his/her citizenship. The burden of proof is always on the state.
Any requirement to carry identification documents come from the feds.
There is absolutely nothing in this proposed law requiring anyone to
carry documentation with them. That is just silly posturing by someone
who apparently doesn't trust his rational argument to persuade and has
to rely on emotional appeals and rhetoric.

The last thing this bill does is to create some penalties under
Arizona criminal law. Have we strayed so far from federalism that we
no longer believe individual states have the right to establish their
own criminal code? By the way this was rather clever of the Arizona
lawmakers as it removes the, weak but possible, federal supremacy
challenge. I find it odd that your friend had a copy of the bill but
apparently chose to rely on, of all things, a USA Today article for
analysis of the bill. Is that the state of a college education these
days?

[Addressee] as you go through life I urge you not to use pie chart
rags as your go-to source for reliable information.

Love Dad"

===============

Of course, "Addressee" is our oldest granddaughter, graduating a
semester early, with honors, from U of A. And "Dad" is our
son-in-law, Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Yuma County, Arizona.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy