The Jury Is Back - AZ SB 1070 Does NOT Racially Discriminate

COMMENT: Finally someone has taken the time to read the Bill before condemning it! This has to be the hardest-to-read 10 pages in the history of literature. This lawyer claims that Arizona's bill is indisputably constitutional. I had no doubt that it was as Arizona has been under a legal microscope for years because of Sheriff Arpaio's no-nonsense policies in the jails of Maricopa County. When the Bill was first signed, they interviewed Sheriff Arpaio about Reverend Al Sharpton coming down there to "get arrested" by him. He stated that, "9 Federal authorities have spent the last year and a half looking at everything he does and they haven't found one think wrong yet, let Al come on down." He added though that he wouldn't call him Reverend until he could figure out what church he's the pastor of. hahaha

Anyway, here's the article:


A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.



Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.

Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."



Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."



The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.



Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.

"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."

The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.