A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona

This is one of the best written articles we have seen on the recently passed and signed immigration law in Arizona. Before getting to the article by Byron York, we want to share the history of the Oklahoma immigration bill to show what happens to states passing tough immigration bills.

Oklahoma had similar threats made against the state after passing a tough immigration bill and actually had two parts of the law overturned dealing with employers and identification after the National Chamber of Commerce filed suit against the state with other groups. Tells you something about the National Chamber of Commerce and it is not good when you look at the list of cases from the Chamber's lawsuits. Is the National Chamber of Commerce going to join in filing a lawsuit against Arizona next? They led in filing the lawsuit against the Oklahoma Immigration Bill so we would expect them to be in the forefront of the suit against Arizona.

The 10th Court of Appeals Decision was issued on Feb 2, 2010. The Oklahoma Attorney General asked for the full Court to hear the case but was turned down on April 19, 2010.

This is now back at the District Court level according to the Tulsa World article for the District Judge to make a decision on a permanent injunction for mandatory use of E-Verify. With the ruling the temporary injunction on this part was lifted. The two provisions that were overturned of the 2007 state law are described in the Tulsa World article:

The decision concluded the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts two provisions in the 2007 state law.

Those provisions prohibit firing workers legally in the country while retaining workers illegally in the United States, and require businesses working with contractors to obtain documentation that workers are legally in the country or, without documentation, withhold taxes at the top rate.

The Attorney General of Oklahoma who is now running for Oklahoma Governor has to make the decision whether to appeal to the Supreme Court but there has been no word about an appeal. Frankly we don't expect any appeal with his Democrat primary election looming.

Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill raising the cost of wire transfers of money last year and now the Mexican Congress has threatened a Trade War with Oklahoma. What does that tell you about the support of Mexican illegals in this Country by their Government? The bill was passed to cut down the wiring of money by illegals and for drug deals. The raise in the wire transfer fee does not apply to wire transfers where banks are used. Because of the raise in fees, the Mexican Government now wants to boycott Oklahoma products coming into Mexico?

If the Mexican Government has threatened a Trade War against Oklahoma over raising wire transfer fees, what are they going to threaten Arizona with after the passage of their immigration bill?

Instead of the Obama Administration worrying about an immigration bill in Arizona they should be questioning the Mexican President about his support of illegals in this Country. The Mexican Government is doing zero, zip, nada to stem the flow of their citizens into the United State illegally. That would required Obama and his Administration to take a stand against illegals which we don't believe will ever happen as he panders for votes.

We wish the Governor of Arizona good luck in defending this immigration bill. It is time American citizens stood with the Governor against the groups that are attacking this bill, and the people who protested with violence after the bill was passed. Read the description of the bill from Byron York and then tell us why people are so up in arms.

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
By: BYRON YORK
April 26, 2010

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com

Read more at the Washington Examiner