Tucson Citizen.com
Carolyn's Community - Our sense of group togetherness and "community" in Tucson

ACLU and Civil Rights Groups file Legal Challenge to SB 1070

by on May. 17, 2010, under Life, Politics

ACLU And Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge To Arizona Racial Profiling Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 17, 2010

CONTACT:

Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6006 or 418-5499

Laura Rodriguez, MALDEF, (310) 956-2425; lrodriguez@maldef.org

Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; delatorre@nilc.org

Karin Wang, APALC, (213) 241-0234 or 999-5640; kwang@apalc.org

Leila McDowell, NAACP, (202) 463-2940 ext. 1021

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging Arizona’s new law requiring police to demand “papers” from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.

The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

“Arizona’s law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a ‘show me your papers’ country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign,” said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This law violates the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect.”

The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.

“This discriminatory law pushes Arizona into a spiral of fear, increased crime and costly litigation,” said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF Senior National Counsel. “We expect that this misguided law will be enjoined before it takes effect.”

One of the individuals the coalition is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee asserts that he will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that, although the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his “papers.”

Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa, is a resident of the state of New Mexico who is currently attending Arizona State University. The state of New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a driver’s license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that would prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot supply proof upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest and detain him.

Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement’s primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.

“This ill-conceived law sends a clear message to communities of color that the authorities are not to be trusted, making them less likely to come forward as victims of or witnesses to crime,” said Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC. “Arizona’s authorities should not allow public safety to take a back seat to racial profiling.”

“African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial profiling,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP. “The government should be preventing police from investigating and detaining people based on color and accent, not mandating it. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for anyone.”

“This extreme law puts Arizona completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality,” said Julie Su, Litigation Director of the APALC. “In a state where U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interned during World War II, it is deeply troubling that a law that would mandate lower-class treatment of people of color, immigrants and others seen to be outsiders would pass in 2010.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of labor, domestic violence, day laborer, human services and social justice organizations, including Friendly House, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW), Arizona South Asians for Safe Families (ASAFSF), Southside Presbyterian Church, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Muslim American Society, Japanese American Citizens League, Valle del Sol, Inc., Coalicíon De Derechos Humanos, and individual named plaintiffs who will be subject to harassment or arrest under the law and a class of similarly situated persons.

“Day laborers have repeatedly defended their First Amendment rights in federal courts and successfully established their undeniable right to seek work in public areas,” said Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of NDLON. “Arizona’s effort to criminalize day laborers and migrants is an affront to the Constitution and threatens to disrupt national unity, and we are confident that federal courts will intervene to ensure the protection of our bedrock civil rights.”

Even prior to the passage of the statute, local enforcement of federal immigration law has already caused rampant racial profiling of Latinos in Arizona, most notably in Maricopa County. The ACLU, MALDEF and other members of the coalition have several pending lawsuits against government officials in Arizona because of civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens and immigrants.

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:

• ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;

• MALDEF: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Nina Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limón and Nicholás Espiritu;

• NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;

• ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;

• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;

• NDLON: Chris Newman and Lisa Kung;

• NAACP: Laura Blackburne;

• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd and Yuval Miller; and

• Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The complaint is attached and can be found at: http://www.acluaz.org/SB1070_Complaint.pdf

More information about the Arizona law, including an ACLU video and slide show, can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

Alessandra Soler Meetze

Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona

P.O. Box 17148

Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148

T: 602-773-6006 (direct)

T: 602-650-1854 ext. 106

F: 602-650-1376

Visit us on the web at: www.acluaz.org

ACLU of Arizona

This entry was posted on Monday, May 17th, 2010 at 10:50 am and is filed under Life, Politics. Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • Pesqueira

    Subirte!

  • leftfield

    Good news!  I hope they can get an injunction while the judge is looking at this.

  • Pascal

    Good luck with the lawsuit! I 100% agree that this issue, hits at the core of American values and is very important for ALL of us.

    • erniemccray

      Because it hits at the core of American values doesn’t make it right. We have a couple of values that need to be reevaluated.

  • http://thechollajumps.com Jim Kelley

     They will lose. Racial profiling is prohibited. The fact that all the above groups want their particular race or color to not have to obey the law makes it obvious that they want more protection than anyone else. That is not equal protection. The 14th Amendment will stand.

    • leftfield

      Try not to get excited, Jim.  I’m sure the judge or judges will give your opinion on constitutional law all the consideration it deserves. 

      You can look at it this way: if your side loses, it will, no doubt, be due to “activist judges legislating from the bench”.  If your side wins, it will be a “brilliant decision upholding the constitution” and then our further efforts to overturn the law with boycotts and marches will be the acts of ”lawless agitators with no respect for the constitution”.   In no way will you be forced to say, “Well, OK…maybe we were all wrong about this law not being unjust”. 

      • Carolyn Classen

        Leftfield,  you have an amazingly erudite and witty way of writing.

        • leftfield

          Thank you, Carolyn.  Mr. Kelley is always an inspiration.

  • Carolyn Classen

    Thanks for all your comments.  Let’s just wait & see what happens with this lawsuit, it’s now up to the U.S. District Court in Arizona.

    • erniemccray

      Hopefully the court has more compassion both legally and socially than a governor who says we have to trust the law enforcement people to not engage in racial profiling. Now, there’s some fine lawfolks around but, generally, based on my time on the planet since 1938 as a black man I will not hold my breath expecting some cop, bent on “making a difference,” doing the right thing. I don’t want to end up a Purple and Blue American gasping for air. Fairy tales are not my thing.

      • Carolyn Classen

        Thanks Ernie, haven’t heard from you for a while.  I too am worried about Arizona law enforcement personnel’s  training (or lack thereof) in stopping & questioning non-white people, some with foreign accents.

      • Ferraribubba

        Hey ernie: Say I’m a cop in Anaheim, out on patrol, and I get a call that a bank has been robbed by  5′ tall black man wearing a baseball cap and holding a cloth bank bag filled with cash.
        10 minutes later, I see a short BLACK man walking down the sidewalk carrying a cloth bag. But without a baseball cap on.
        Do I stop him? Do I have ‘probable cause?’  is it ‘racial profiling?’
        God forbid that Officer Bubba would ever be guilty of such a heinous crime as racial profiling.
        I’m all ears as to to your learned take on this. Like Our new Supreme Court Nominee (Whats-her-name, who has not actually sat as a Judge in even Traffic Court) has said she does, I feel that you watch Judge Judy on a regular basis, therefore it should be a snap.
        Peace, love, out . . . Yer pal, Ferrari Bubba
         

        • erniemccray

          Hey, Ferraribubba, I’d stop the dude in a minute and the first thing I would tell him is exactly what was said when I was called and how he fit the description being a mini-me sized person with a cloth bag. What you’ve described isn’t how the abusive insensitive cops whom I have encountered work. They’d stop Wilt Chamberlain because all they would have heard is “black man.”
          My first Sunday after moving to San Diego in ’62, I was shooting some hoops in a park and police officers swooped in on the scene and had us up against a wall because a black guy had committed a burglary in the area. THAT is “racial profiling” gone amuck. I haven’t faced such bull in a long time, being 72 now. But it still happens with young black folks.
          Hey, some Latinos are going to catch hell in this madness going on in Arizona because there’s a few bad apples out there, law enforcement wise, who don’t approach the world with “Peace, love, out, Yer pal” attitudes.
          As to the new Supreme Court nominee… Working with kids, learners, all my life, and having viewed talents and aptitudes galore itching to be nurtured and encouraged, I’m not so caught up in a person not being able to do a job because of a lack of experience. I had a student who wanted to work in radio who graduated and completely bypassed college and went into the industry and was soon running communication companies. So I guess I said all that to say I have some concerns about Kagan but they have nothing to do with her not having any judging experience. Brilliant minds can accomplish wonderful and amazing things.
          Anyway, this black dude just opened his bag and there was no money inside, just some collard greens, a pack of Marlboros (he was trying to look big) and an Ebony Magazine so I said “Have a good day” rather than further adding to his”bad day” with harassing questions like “Where is your baseball cap?” I picked the wrong guy but he was a shade over 4’11″ and near the crime scene. Anyone with a problem with that can deal with it however they choose. When we stand in truth, as you know, we don’t have much to fear. The mirror is kind to people who try to live with integrity.
          Peace out, bro.

          • leftfield

            The mirror is kind to people who try to live with integrity.

            That one short sentence is so full of wisdom and truth, we’d be wise to carry that one around with us always. 

          • erniemccray

            And I just learned something else about mirrors. Mirrors treat Denzel and George Clooney a lot kinder, lookwise, than it does me. Not much, though (smile).

  • jqc7

    I just saw the best article on Arizona’s law written by Gregory Kane.  Check it out:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Furor-over-Arizona-law-is-really-about-respect-93890554.html#ixzz0oEmKzni8

    • Carolyn Classen

      Yes Jqc7, as foreigners in a country, we have to be mindful of their laws and while travelling in Europe, often we are required to show our passports to hotel personnel in Spain and Italy (they say they have to report our presence to their local police).  But in Arizona, the problem with SB 1070 is that it can allow police to ask for “papers” (legal documents proving U.S. citizenship) of all of us (U.S. Citizens included), whether we “look foreign” (or not), speak with an accent, or are people of color.  It can lead to racial profiling, even of people who look (foreign) like me, as I speak with an accent (Hawaiian).

      • Suniek

        We citizens are asked for our “Paperwork” all the time.  Ever try to cash a check at a bank other than your own?  Try using a credit card at Ross Dress for less. they ask for “paperwork”.  Why should any group of people be exempt from showing paperwork that they are legal?  My experience has been that if someone doesn’t have anything to hide, its no problem, but on the other hand if something is not up to snuff.. that would be a NO.  Besides… what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand? Either a person was born here or has taken the proper steps to be allowed in this country. NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY RIGHT TO BE HERE.  How about we adopt the standards of Mexico.  What do they do when they find someone there who has not taken the proper steps?  We have to show “paperwork” to visit Mexico or Canada. Why should they not do the same???????

        • Carolyn Classen

          I have no problem with showing paperwork to prove who I am as a legal resident of America, but the problem with SB 1070 is that law enforcement may now have the right (and duty) to check on immigration status of someone they have “reasonable suspicion” may be here illegally.  How will they be adequately trained to assess that, without Arizona becoming like a police, totalitarian state?   That is the concern of many people who feel this new law will racially profile people of Hispanic, Asian, Black ethnicities.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~eo9066/Intro.html Wes

    “In a state where U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interned during World War II…” Typical misinformation here — what does that have to do with the present situation? The Japanese were enemy aliens, nationals of a country we were at war with. What civil rights did they have? Some were very civilly treated, though, and placed in two relocation centers in Arizona, and they were quite willing; these were not internment camps. Their children necessarily had to be with them, even though they were American born. You also do not mention, of course, the Japanese nationals and their familes who were already living in Arizona and were never in centers or camps during WWII. Please talk about them next article. No more misinformation!

    • Carolyn Classen

      Wes, regarding that internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, that was not a voluntary relocation, but a government mandated forced one with only 24 hours notice in some areas.  Most internees (2/3) were U.S. Citizens and the rest were lawful permanent residents, not “enemy aliens” as you call them.  I personally knew several and their civil rights were totally taken away from them, by loss of their liberty (some up to 4 years in those camps) and property.  This mass relocation from the West Coast was only  applied to Japanese Americans, but E.O. 9066 was an “exclusion” order and should have applied to German Americans and Italian Americans as well.  I was U.S.  Senator Inouye’s legislative aide on Capitol Hill when we created the National Commission that investigated that wrong. To watch a recent KUAT AZ Illustrated interview of local educator Dr. Hank Oyama who lived at the Poston relocation center, see: http://ondemand.azpm.org/ondemand-home/video-segment/2010/5/17/1559-growing-up-in-a-japanese-american-internment-camp/

      • http://thechollajumps.com Jim Kelley

        Germans were interned as well. Not POWs but german-Americans. So get the facts straight. The intrnment was a reaction to what the Japanese had done at Batan in the Phillipines where hundreds died on a forced march including members of my family, my great aunt, a school teacher, and her family. The economic blocakde of Japan was placed on them in 1939 after Japan invaded China and killed 100,000 chinese in 4 days. The Japanese played a game where they threw children and babies in the air and the soldiers caught them on their bayonettes. The treatment of women in the Japanese camps was atrocious. No medical care for the American forces at all.
        The interned Japanese in America, yes taken from where they lived, transported by truck, to camps where they had food three times a day, schools for their children, they grew their own fruits and vegetables, they had movies every Friday night. The women were not forced to become “comfort” girls. The men were not abused. They had mecdical care, clean water and sanitary facilites. Sorry, no tears for the Nisei from me.

        • Carolyn Classen

          You are confusing 120,000 innocent civilian Japanese Americans and some German Americans (who had nothing to do with WWII), with the atrocities committed by enemy Germans and Japanese troops.  The first group were people who had immigrated legally from Germany and Japan.

  • http://www.weeklyintercept.blogspot.com J.T. Waldron

    With peripheral relevance, I present the protest today at John McCain’s Tucson Office:
    http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2010/05/four-risk-deportation-sitting-in.html
     

    • Carolyn Classen

      Thanks JT, I didn’t know about this peaceful protest by documented and undocumented students at U.S. Senator McCain’s district office.  This issue is becoming a hot bed of polarizing forces in Arizona and beyond, by people of all ages and races and backgrounds.

  • ado1

    What is it the ACLU don’t get about “ILLEGAL”? Why don’t radical LIB types believe in enforcement of United States immigration law?  Perhaps these folks ought to be living in some other country where obedience to the laws of the nation aren’t respected or obeyed.  Places for example like  Ciudad Juarez,  Chihuahua.  I would love to count the days  these ACLU fools could stay alive across the border in that place.
     
     
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/29/world/main6443283.shtml

  • http://www.blogspot.father_of_10.com fatheroften

    I just hope the judges bother to read SB1070 before they pass judgement on it.  Holder, Napolitano and many others are passing judgement based solely on some reporters spin, who most likely hadn’t read the bill either.  So I wonder, are you open-borders people going to petition the ACLU to sue the federal guv’ment over its immigration law?  What about the California immigration law that is very similar to SB1070?

    I guess the bottom line is:  Do you want the illegals out of this country or not?  Dp you want our boders secure or not?  Doesn’t sound like you do.

«
»