Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Arizona Republic reports on breaking news this afternoon in Phoenix. Arizona immigration law hit with its first 2 lawsuits:
The first two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new illegal immigration law were filed in federal court today, and a third group is promising theirs will come soon.
The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in downtown Phoenix, alleging that the law is illegal because it usurps federal authority in immigration enforcement and because of concerns the law may lead to racial profiling. The group says on its website that it represents 20,000 churches in 34 states.
[For lawsuit in Tucson, see below.]
* * *
Also on Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the National Immigration Law Center confirmed their plans to file a joint lawsuit. They contend that the law is unconstitutional, encourages racial profiling and endangers public safety. Senate Bill 1070, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer Friday, is set to become law 90 days after adjournment of the state Legislature.
This isn't the first time the groups have worked together to challenge a state law.
Fifteen years ago, they successfully challenged Proposition 187 in California. The so-called "Save Our State Initiative" was designed to cut off social services and kindergarten-through-12th-grade education to undocumented immigrants. It was supported by nearly 60 percent of California voters Nov. 8, 1994 but it was put on hold by a federal judge almost immediately. Three years later, the court struck down many of the key provisions, determining that they were unconstitutional or not issues to be decided by the state.
A settlement of the court challenge in 1999 by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, an opponent, left intact only stiffer penalties for those who forge immigration documents and those who use them.
* * *
Arizona Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix, is working with the clergy group on its lawsuit.
"The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders felt it was urgent for this to be filed immediately because of the economic factors and the human factors," Miranda said. "There is a need for federal intervention to determine the extent to which this law is unconstitutional."
He said the speed of the effort is also intended to calm the fears of the community and assure them that an effort will be made to assure the law never goes into effect.
In Tucson, a suit on behalf of Officer Martin Escobar alleges the new immigration law violates numerous constitutional rights and could hinder police investigations in Hispanic-prevalent areas.
The lawsuit also claims it violates federal law because Tucson police and the city have no authority to perform immigration duties. Escobar noted in the lawsuit there's no racially neutral criteria that can be used by officers to determine whether a person is in the country illegally.
In Tucson, the Arizona Daily Star reports Tucson cop first to sue to block AZ immigration law:
A Tucson police officer has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law, claiming the legislation will hinder police investigations in Hispanic-prevalent areas.
The suit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Tucson by Officer Martin H. Escobar, also claims SB 1070 would make police focus more on immigration than helping people in need.
“What are we saying to the undocumented who are victims of crimes, what are we saying to the undocumented who are critical witnesses to crimes?” said Escobar’s attorney, Richard Martinez.
The suit also claims the new law, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed on April 23, violates several constitutional rights and also violates federal law because the Tucson Police Department and the city have no authority to perform immigration duties.
Escobar, 45, a 15-year veteran of TPD, noted in the lawsuit his experience patrolling the Hispanic-heavy Operations Division South indicates there’s no racially neutral criteria that can be used by officers to determine whether a person is in the country illegally.
* * *
Any attempt to confirm immigration status when making contact with the public would “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes in the United States,” the suit claims.
* * *
“This doesn’t help law enforcement, it hurts them,” Martinez said. “Police officers always exercise discretion, but this statute takes away discretion.”
Martinez said officers who attempt to get around SB 1070 could face department discipline, loss of state peace officer certification and even the possibility of lawsuits by members of the public if, for instance, a person requested police check someone’s immigration status and the officer didn’t do so.
Escobar’s suit asks for police to be prevented from having to comply with SB 1070, leaving immigration duties to federal law enforcement, and to prevent state legislators from enacting any other laws dealing with immigration.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WAKE UP FELLOW ARIZONAN RESIDENCE! IAM A NATIVE TUCSONAN WHO OWNS SEVERAL MALL RETAIL STORES FOR OVER 26 YEARS. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND THE LOSSES THAT WE ARE INCURRING DURING THIS BAN THAT MEXICAN NATIONALS BOYCOTTING THE STATE ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD TRULY HATES ARIZONA. THINK IT IS NOT SERIOUS, IF A KOREAN FAMILY I KNOW EMAILED US ASKING WHY ARIZONANS ARE BEING CALL RACIESTS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY! THATS HOW FAR REACHING THIS MESS IS GETTONG FOR US HERE IN ARIZONA. WE ARE NOT RACISTS, WE LOVE ANY VISTOR WHO COMES TO OUR TOWN AND WE NEED ALL OF THEM. TUCSON RELIES ON TOURIST DOLLARS FROM EVERYWHERE. ESPECIALLY FROM MEXICAN NATIONALS WHO COME HERE TO SHOP ALL YEAR (LEGALLY) WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT KEEP OUR ECONOMY A FLOAT. NOW WE ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH AND WE WILL LOOSE MILLIONS OVER SB-1070. WE HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER AND WE ARE JUDGED FROM EVERYONE NOW. WE DESTROYED OUR HOUSING MARKET WITH THE LAST IMMIGRATION LAW THAT STOPPED IMMIGRANTS FROM WORKING IN THE STATE. OUR REAL ESTATE MARKET IS IN RUINS WITH HOME VALUES/PRICES SLASHED FROM ALL THE BANKRUPT LANDLORDS WHO HAD TO GIVE UP HOMES, AND OUR ECONOMY HAS SEVERELY EMPLODED. HOW DO YOU EXPECT BUSINESSES TO TAKE ANOTHER BLOW? IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO TAKE THESE LOSS OF SALES REVENUES AND STAY IN BUSINESS. THE STATE BUDGETS WILL GO BANKRUPT, BUSINESS IS DOWN OVER 40% DUE TO THIS SB-1070 NEGATIVE EFFECT. THIS WILL BE THE END OF THE ROAD FOR MANY LOCAL BUSINESSES.
WHERE DO THEY GET THESE STATISTICS THAT 75% OF ARIZONANS ARE FOR THIS LAW AND 65% OF MEXICAN AMERICANS ARE FOR THE LAW. THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE! IF 15-18% OF MEX-AMERICANS ARE PRO SB-1070 WOULD BE TOPS. STOP THE LIES ABOUT OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS LAW BECAUSE WE ARE AGAINT IT IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA. WE NEED HELP FROM THIS CRISIS NOW WITH THE FEDERAL GOVT FIGHTING THE LAW IN COURT. SAVE US IS SOUTHERN ARIZONA, IF YOU LIVE NEXT TO A BORDER HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE AGAINS OUR NEIGHBORS FROM THE SOUTH OF THE BORDER. IF YOU HATE MEXICANS THEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF STATES NORTH FOR YOU TO MOVE TO. REVERSE THIS LAW OR WATCH TUCSON GO TO ITS LOWEST DEPTHS IS OUR STATES HISTORY.
STEVE M
TUCSON AZ
AGE 49
thanks for this post however, i am jewish, not white, however all i was attempting was to clear up misconceptions of race versus ethnicity.
after reading your typepad comments, you strike me as a very informed individual. I am NOT trying to show any racisms as al sharpton, jesse jackson did towards the jewish community. I was pointing out how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT classifies us AMERICANS. ok with that?
BTW: FYI: I AM NOT PRIVY TO THIS F.A.I.R. group, nor do i subscribe to their beliefs, nor do i favor madcow lady on msnbc
Looks like the “Darwinian-Galtonian evolutionary tradition and eugenics movement” of FAIR has discovered this blog. Rather than take down this screed, I will let our “intellectually superior” readership here see what kind of crazy they are up against. Wow!
The category “Hispanic” is considered an ethnicity, rather than a race, by the U.S. Census.[10][4] These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature
WOW such ignorance within the public sector THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RACE CALLED; MEXICAN or LATINO, etc. some years ago i saw these same self persons claim that the state of Colorado, California New Mexico still belonged to ol’ Mexico
THE DEATH TOLL IN PHOENIX alone has reached epedemic proportations.
REAL AMERICAN CITIZENS IN ARIZONA cannot even go to work without fear of being kidnapped or killed.
during my stay in the army i was an still am a PROFILER OF these so called races. A race is determined by your DNA genetics, not skin colour.
Social definitions of race
In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, African-Americans and European-Americans were classified as belonging to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person’s appearance, his fraction of known non-White ancestry, and his social circle.
But the difference between how Native American and Black identities are defined today (blood quantum versus one-drop) has demanded explanation. According to anthropologists such as Gerald Sider, the goal of such racial designations was to concentrate power, wealth, privilege and land in the hands of Whites in a society of White hegemony and privilege (Sider 1996; see also Fields 1990). The differences have little to do with biology and far more to do with the history of racism and specific forms of White supremacy (the social, geopolitical and economic agendas of dominant Whites vis-à-vis subordinate Blacks and Native Americans) especially the different roles Blacks and Amerindians occupied in White-dominated 19th century America. The theory suggests that the blood quantum definition of Native American identity enabled Whites to acquire Amerindian lands, while the one-drop rule of Black identity enabled Whites to preserve their agricultural labor force. The contrast presumably emerged because as peoples transported far from their land and kinship ties on another continent, Black labor was relatively easy to control, thus reducing Blacks to valuable commodities as agricultural laborers. In contrast, Amerindian labor was more difficult to control; moreover, Amerindians occupied large territories that became valuable as agricultural lands, especially with the invention of new technologies such as railroads; thus, the blood quantum definition enhanced White acquisition of Amerindian lands in a doctrine of Manifest Destiny that subjected them to marginalization and multiple episodic localized campaigns of extermination.
The political economy of race had different consequences for the descendants of aboriginal Americans and African slaves. The 19th century blood quantum rule meant that it was relatively easier for a person of mixed Euro-Amerindian ancestry to be accepted as White. The offspring of only a few generations of intermarriage between Amerindians and Whites likely would not have been considered Amerindian at all (at least not in a legal sense). Amerindians could have treaty rights to land, but because an individual with one Amerindian great-grandparent no longer was classified as Amerindian, they lost any legal claim to Amerindian land. According to the theory, this enabled Whites to acquire Amerindian lands. The irony is that the same individuals who could be denied legal standing because they were “too White” to claim property rights, might still be Amerindian enough to be considered as “breeds”, stigmatized for their Native American ancestry.
The 20th century one-drop rule, on the other hand, made it relatively difficult for anyone of known Black ancestry to be accepted as White. The child of an African-American sharecropper and a White person was considered Black. And, significant in terms of the economics of sharecropping, such a person also would likely be a sharecropper as well, thus adding to the employer’s labor force.
In short, this theory suggests that in a 20th century economy that benefited from sharecropping, it was useful to have as many Blacks as possible. Conversely, in a 19th century nation bent on westward expansion, it was advantageous to diminish the numbers of those who could claim title to Amerindian lands by simply defining them out of existence.
It must be mentioned, however, that although some scholars of the Jim Crow period agree that the 20th century notion of invisible Blackness shifted the color line in the direction of paleness, thereby swelling the labor force in response to Southern Blacks’ great migration northwards, others (Joel Williamson, C. Vann Woodward, George M. Fredrickson, Stetson Kennedy) see the one-drop rule as a simple consequence of the need to define Whiteness as being pure, thus justifying White-on-Black oppression. In any event, over the centuries when Whites wielded power over both Blacks and Amerindians and widely believed in their inherent superiority over people of color, it is no coincidence that the hardest racial group in which to prove membership was the White one.
In the United States, social and legal conventions developed over time that forced individuals of mixed ancestry into simplified racial categories (Gossett 1997). An example is the “one-drop rule” implemented in some state laws that treated anyone with a single known African American ancestor as black (Davis 2001). The decennial censuses conducted since 1790 in the United States also created an incentive to establish racial categories and fit people into those categories (Nobles 2000). In other countries in the Americas where mixing among groups was overtly more extensive, social categories have tended to be more numerous and fluid, with people moving into or out of categories on the basis of a combination of socioeconomic status, social class, ancestry, and appearance (Mörner 1967).
The term “Hispanic” as an ethnonym emerged in the 20th century with the rise of migration of laborers from American Spanish-speaking countries to the United States; it thus includes people who had been considered racially distinct (Black, White, Amerindian or other mixed groups) in their home countries. Today, the word “Latino” is often used as a synonym for “Hispanic”. If these categories were, however, early on understood as racial categories, there seem to be presently a shift presenting them as ethno-linguistic categories (regardless of perceived race), something that can also been seen as a strategy by some of the categorized in order to be included in the white dominant group (as the emergence of White Hispanics points to), and at the same time as a rejection of a racial label that many see not only as disciminatory but also as not portraying properly their populational origins. In contrast to “Latino” or “Hispanic”, “Anglo” is now used in a similar way to refer to non-Hispanic White Americans or non-Hispanic European Americans, most of whom speak the English language but are not necessarily of English descent.
[edit] Official race definitions in the United States
Main articles: Race and ethnicity in the United States Census and Race (EEO)
The United States government has provided definitions regarding race
Racial classification in the U.S. 2000 census and in employment reports for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was based solely on self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify and did not pre-suppose disjointedness. The category “Hispanic” is considered an ethnicity, rather than a race, by the U.S. Census.[10][4] These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.[9] They change from one census to another, and the racial categories include both racial and national-origin groups.[11][12]
In 2007 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the US Department of Labor finalized its update of the EEO-1 report format and guidelines to come into an effect on September 30, 2007. In particular, this update concerns the definitions of racial/ethnic categories, see Race (EEO).
Racism in the United States has been a major issue in the country since before its founding. Historically dominated by a settler society of religiously and ethnically diverse whites, race in the United States as a concept became significant in relation to other groups. Traditionally, racist attitudes in the country have been most onerously applied to Native Americans, African Americans and some “foreign-seeming” immigrant groups and their descendants and/or ancestors and is not limited to one racial group’s view towards another group.