Articles Tagged ‘SB 1070’

Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

When I checked the news on last night before I went to bed my jaw dropped.

“Whoa!”

The 2011 voting results were in, and they spelled major victories for civil libertarians across the nation. Here are the highlights:

1) Mississippi “Personhood” Amendment defeated

On Tuesday Mississippi voters soundly rejected a amendment to the state constitution that would define a fertilized egg as a person with all the rights thereof. This is of course a fantastically absurd, really bad, terrible idea. For many reasons.

By this definition, certain forms of birth control could be considered murder. For instance, the Intrauterine Device (IUD) prevents pregnancy by keeping fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. So under the so-called “personhood” amendment should women with IUDs be charged as serial killers? What about fertility doctors who implant several fertilized eggs and then destroy all but the most viable?

Bottom line: anti-choice extremists have no business forcing their own religious world view on the rest of the population. Women have the right to make private reproductive heathcare choices in consultation with their doctor. That’s why Mississipians voted down this ballot measure by an overwhelming 16 point margin.

2) Russell Pierce, architect of SB 1070, recalled in Arizona

I’ll preface this with a reminder that the ACLU does not endorse or oppose political candidates. We do, however, weigh in on the policy issues they are responsible for. Russell Pearce, Senate Majority leader in Arizona, is best known as the architect of the unfair, discriminatory “Show me your papers” law passed in Arizona last year. This law would require law enforcement officials in Arizona to investigate the immigration status of anyone they “suspected” of being in the country without the proper documents. Essentially, the law is a mandate for state-sponsored racial profiling.

Yesterday, Arizona voters recalled Senator Pearce, replacing him with another Republican with a more mainstream stance on immigration issues. This recall move was widely seen as a referendum on last year’s unconstitutional immigration law.

Bottom line: state and local law enforcement should not be responsible for enforcing federal immigration law. It hurts our communities, destroys trust in law enforcement and leads to racial profiling of people who look or sound “foreign.” Arizona voters sent a strong message yesterday, repudiating anti-immigrant scapegoating.

3) Same day voter registration stays in Maine

In a bald-faced move to suppress certain groups of voters, the Maine Legislature passed a law in the last legislative session that eliminated election day voter registration. Their excuse for passing this vote-suppressing law will be familiar to New Mexicans–voter fraud! Rampant, pervasive voter fraud!

In Maine, like New Mexico, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Yesterday, Maine voters saw through the legislature’s political move and overwhelmingly rejected the new law with 59 percent of the vote.

Bottom line: Our leaders shouldn’t play politics with the foundation of our democracy, our elections system.

Bottom line-bottom line?

When civil libertarians organize together and stand up for the Constitution, there is no limit to what we can overcome–and ACLU members played a big role. The ACLU of Mississippi was part of the coalition that helped defeat the “personhood”amendment, the ACLU of Maine actively organized to overturn the voter-suppressing repeal of election day registration, and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit blocking key parts of the “Show me your papers law.”

So keep standing up for liberty with the ACLU. It’s hard work, but days like yesterday remind us what we’re fighting for.

PHOENIX – Ensuring that Arizona law enforcement will not be required to demand “papers” from people they stop who they suspect are “unlawfully present” in the U.S., a federal court in Phoenix today blocked key provisions of Arizona’s racial profiling law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging the Arizona law. The ruling vindicates similar claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit challenging the discriminatory measure.

The blocked sections under the law include the following provisions:

•    The requirement that police officers investigate the immigration status of all individuals they stop if the officers suspect that they are in the country unlawfully;
•    The mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested, even for minor offenses that would normally result in a ticket, if they cannot verify that they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
•    The new statute imposing state criminal penalties for non-citizens failing to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
•    The provision for warrantless arrest of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be “removable” from the U.S.; and
•    The new state statute making it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.

The court blocked the provision that would create an Arizona ban on undocumented persons applying for, soliciting or performing work. However, the court did not block the provisions that prohibit day laborers from being hired if the party hiring them impedes traffic. The civil rights coalition maintains these sections violate free speech protections and are confident that they too will ultimately be barred as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.*

The civil rights coalition that also challenged the law includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.

The coalition’s lawsuit, filed on May 17 and argued the same day as the Justice Department’s case, challenges SB 1070 on legal grounds raised in the Justice Department’s lawsuit as well as others including that the law invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.

The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“This is a major step that will help protect the residents of Arizona against racial profiling and discrimination, and the Obama administration deserves praise for its principled decision to challenge this law despite pressure to stay silent. A single state’s frustration with federal policy cannot be allowed to hijack federal authority or dictate federal priorities in ways that impede effective law enforcement, threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and violate core American values.”

Nina Perales, Regional Counsel Southwest Region for MALDEF:

“Today’s ruling guts the unconstitutional immigration scheme that Arizona wanted to establish. The judge’s decision further shows that SB 1070 is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to take over the federal immigration system within Arizona’s borders. States around the nation should take heed that any similar efforts will not succeed.”

Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:

“With today’s ruling, Judge Bolton enjoined the most egregious provisions of SB 1070, a dangerous enactment that threatens the fundamental rights of countless Arizonans and visitors. Other states following in Arizona’s misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned: attempts to trample on the constitutional rights of communities of color in this country must not be permitted. We look forward to showing, through our lawsuit, that this pernicious law should be taken off Arizona’s books permanently.”

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:

“This is a first step toward a victory for civil liberties in Arizona. We eagerly anticipate proving to the court that this reactionary racial profiling law violates the Constitution so we can begin the real work of crafting practical solutions that address our nation’s immigration concerns rather than violate fundamental American values.”

Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:

“We applaud the judge for seeing the imminent danger of having this law enacted. SB 1070 presents a distinct and separate immigration scheme that conflicts with federal law and policy, and would have a devastating impact on Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos and other people of color in Arizona. Indeed, some of those negative effects have already been felt. This ruling makes clear that intimidation of immigrant communities, pretextual stops to ask for ‘papers,’ and rhetoric about who belongs in Arizona and who doesn’t under the guise of enforcing SB 1070 should cease immediately.”

Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON:

“If history is any guide, the road ahead in Arizona will be a long one. Today was one stop along the way, and we while we have complete faith in the legal process to ultimately defend the United States Constitution, we will not declare victory until SB 1070 is stopped in its entirety and until civil rights of all people in Arizona are fully protected.”

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

•    ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
•    MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
•    NILC: Joaquin, Karen 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;
•    NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
•    Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro;
•    Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at:www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-

A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be found at:www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers

Read the judge’s decision here.

More information about the Arizona law can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

(DEADLINE AUGUST 20, 2010)

The Southwestern Chapter of the ACLU of New Mexico is sponsoring a singer/songwriter competition in connection with its annual meeting to be held Sept. 17. Due to growing controversy regarding immigration and other border issues, the ACLU is looking for songs that deal with issues of civil liberties relating to border issues, immigration and/or the Arizona law, SB 1070. The competition is open to all musicians in the border regions of West Texas, New Mexico and Arizona who write and perform in any musical genre. The prize will be a four-hour recording session provided by the co-sponsor, Barefoot Studio. All submissions must be original compositions of the artist/performer (maximum two entries per artist) made on an official entry form and submitted with a tape or CD recording of the entry along with a written copy of the lyrics.

Contest Rules

Official Entry Form

Mail entries to:

ACLU/Competition

c/o Peter Falley

521 E. Lance Dr., Silver City, N.M., 88061.

TRAVEL ALERT

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico

PO BOX 566

Albuquerque, NM 87103

ACLU Travel Alert for

STATE OF ARIZONA

June 30, 2010

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU-NM) alerts New Mexico residents to potential threats to the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individuals planning to travel or stay in Arizona. On April 23, 2010, Arizona enacted a state racial profiling law, SB 1070, that has generated fear and confusion among the public about the treatment and rights of Americans in the State of Arizona. Although the law is not scheduled to go into effect until July 29, 2010, and multiple lawsuits have already been filed to prevent it from taking effect at all, a history of rampant racial profiling by law enforcement officials in Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes the cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, and Scottsdale) and a stated policy of “attrition through enforcement” adopted by lawmakers in the state give credible reason to be concerned even before the date SB 1070 is supposed to go into effect.

The law will require police officers to demand papers proving U.S. citizenship or immigration status from any individual whom they stop, detain, or arrest, based on an undefined “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country unlawfully. It invites discrimination against and pretextual stops and arrests of Latinos, other racial minorities, and individuals believed to look or sound “foreign,” based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin. The law expressly provides that even suspected infractions of city or town ordinances – such as jaywalking, excessive noise, or having an overgrown or untidy lawn – can and should lead to immigration questioning. If individuals are unable to prove to the police officer that they are permitted to be in the United States, they may be subject to warrantless arrest without any probable cause that they have committed a crime.

Since 2007, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) has systematically engaged in selective enforcement of minor traffic laws to target Latino motorists for stops and investigation of their U.S. citizenship or immigration status. The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into the practices of the MCSO, and there are at least two pending civil rights lawsuits challenging this activity in the federal courts.

The increased risk that individuals and motorists will be stopped, questioned, detained, and arrested because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin makes it imperative that New Mexico residents understand their rights when encountering law enforcement authorities in Arizona.

The ACLU has prepared an informational card for the public entitled, “What to Do if You’re Stopped by Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI.” While the card provides information that applies throughout the United States in any encounter with law enforcement officials, New Mexico residents are particularly advised to download and read this card before traveling to Arizona. A copy is available at http://aclu-nm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ACLU-bust-card-2010_final.pdf.

Key information that applies to all New Mexico residents considering travel through Arizona includes the following:

• If you travel through the state of Arizona and encounter law enforcement officers, remember that all persons within the boundaries of the United States, regardless of immigration status, are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

• Racial and ethnic profiling is illegal. An officer cannot stop you because of physical features or English ability. The officer must be able to articulate a reason for a “lawful stop or detention.”

• If you are stopped for questioning:

Stay calm. Don’t run. Don’t argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them. If you are driving a car, stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.

Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, you have the right to calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.

You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. However, under state law in Arizona and some other states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself. If you are the driver of a vehicle, upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave.  If the officer says yes, sit silently in the car or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.

You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may “pat down” your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect your rights later in court. If you are the driver of a vehicle and an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.

• If you are questioned about your immigration status:

You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country.  (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)

If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you. If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.

Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.

• If you feel your rights have been violated, write down everything you can remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details.  Get contact information for witnesses.

• Residents of Hawai’i, New Mexico, and Washington should be aware that, because the driver’s licenses of their states do not require proof of legal residence for issuance, they may not satisfy Arizona criteria for identification under the new Arizona racial profiling law.

New Mexico residents who are subjected to racial or ethnic profiling or other rights violations are encouraged to report these concerns to:

www.aclu-nm.org >> Submit a Complaint

ACLU of New Mexico

PO BOX 566

Albuquerque, NM 87103

What Happens in Arizona Stops in Arizona

An ACLU-NM forum on SB 1070

In April, the State of Arizona passed a discriminatory, un-American law known as SB 1070 that mandates racial profiling of suspected illegal immigrants. This affront to our cherished values of freedom and fairness is being challenged by the ACLU and other civil rights groups in the courts, but until it is blocked, it is imperative that New Mexicans understand how the law may impact them as travel through Arizona.

To learn more about SB 1070, come hear ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson and immigration attorney Becca Kitson discuss what SB 1070 means for New Mexicans.

Read our travel advisory for Arizona