Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Arizona's SB 1070: A mockery of the U.S. Constitution and international law, says human rights leader

On the eve of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing the challenge to Arizona law SB 1070, Justin Mazzola, lead researcher of the newly released Amnesty International report, In Hostile Terrain: Human rights violations in immigration enforcement in the US southwest, said: 

"Amnesty International believes that if the Supreme Court hands down a decision in favor of SB 1070, this places immigrant, Latino and Indigenous communities in Arizona at increased risk of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment. The federal government cannot even enforce this country's immigration laws with 100 percent  accuracy as individuals with claims for U.S. citizenship are detained for as long as a year and some American citizens have even been deported.  Giving states this authority would make a mockery of both the U.S. Constitution and the United States' obligations under international law.
If SB 1070 is ruled to be constitutional, similar laws will continue to be enacted in states all across the United States, exposing communities in every state to discriminatory treatment or other human rights violations." 
US Supreme Court
Image by Wikiwopbop at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons

14 comments:

One Fly said...

I fully expect the worst ruling. I hate to be like that but I do.

Billie Greenwood said...

I agree with both sentences of your comment. Thank you. Now I don't feel so alone.

One Fly said...

I don't ever get that message from you Billie but it is certainly mine. It's a very tough position to take.

fan of Gaia said...

The US used to be the shining beacon of justice and fair play to the world.The migration/immigration problems are complex but instituting laws like SB 1070 will deliver no solutions.

fan of Gaia said...

The US used to be a shining beacon to the world of liberty and respect for human rights. The shine is off it somewhat these days and the Arizona bill is an example of why.

Billie Greenwood said...

Your perspective from the north is on-target (in my opinion, anyway). I feel so disillusioned about our nation. It's an uphill battle to continue to clamor for justice.

RealityZone said...

O and his crew are secretly hoping that 1070 stands.
It will be a political win for him, and he will use it for his lip service during the campaign.
Besides he already said that he will get a comprehensive bill passed in his NEXT first year in office. :-)
I speak to a lot of Mexicans, legal, and illegal.
They do not and have not believed a single word he says for a long time.

One Fly said...

The header I saw early today was that the supremes didn't see much wrong with 1070.

We have gotten nothing for so long. This is the reason these people are there.

RealityZone said...

They are reporting that Sodemeyer ripped the Govt. also.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgjFJ36yme8&feature=g-all-u

Billie Greenwood said...

That's a very powerful video, RealityZone! I'm unaware of what you're saying about Sotomeyer. Am traveling now and out of touch with news. Will be on the lookout. Post a link if you can. Thanks.

RealityZone said...

http://lynwood.patch.com/articles/sb-1070-supreme-court-appears-to-favor-arizona-on-controversial-immigration-law

This is a good site.

http://threesonorans.com/2012/04/25/even-sotomayor-may-not-strike-down-sb1070/

Nicholas Temple said...

Yep, a mockery.

Vicente Duque said...

Invisible Boycott Under Way - Many people are avoiding Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and other unwelcoming states, the same for Business. Nobody wants to be harassed by Ignorant and Brutal Policemen. Or by idiotic employees or bureaucracies ( public or private ) :


The Super Power of a Wallet :


People love their wallets and moneys and don't want to give them to scoundrels.

Let's assume that you are a tourist with some money to spend in traveling, vacation, merchandise, souvenirs.

Are you going to spend that money, your time and resources, in places where you are not welcome ??

Where you are tortured, harassed and humiliated ??

By ignorant bigots, racists, haters that everyday listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or some other cretin and idiot repeating the same stupidity in every program ??

By people with inferiority complexes and psychological inadequacies, poor losers that have a revenge against life and want to turn you into a victim, to satisfy their sadism ??

Do you want "souvenirs" from states where people vote laws of hatred, discrimination, segregation and apartheid ??

Yes, Slavery was very popular and won many elections, Segregation was very popular and won many elections, the Ku Klux Klan was very popular and won many elections, Apartheid was very popular and won men elections.

The Nazis were very popular and won many elections and Hitler was elevated to Chancellor of the Reich by legal methods and the "Rule of Law".

But Henry David Thoureau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King taught us to despise "The Rule of Law" when it is INJUSTICE, DOMINATION, HUMILIATION and HATRED.

I don't know what the U. S. Supreme Court is going to decide on SB 1070, but if this court wants to legislate from the bench overpowering President Obama and Congress then the new "Four Horsemen" will be losers at the end and will be defeated in elections.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could finally defeat the "Four Horsemen" of "Social Darwinism" ( his own words ) that plagued his presidency. He finally changed the U. S. Supreme Court.

President Barack Obama will do the same if the new "Four Horsemen" want to be so unwise.


************************

Vicente Duque said...

British "Guardian" : It looks as if the U. S. Supreme Court will sweep legitimate federal powers, as well as the fourth and 14th amendments, under the rug - Antonin Scalia uses inane Republican buzzwords like a third-rate wingnut talkshow host

The British Guardian Newspaper describes the U. S. Supreme Court as "pursuing a states' rights, anti-federal agenda, reckless of the constitution".


British "Guardian" Newspaper
This supremely Republican supreme court
Friday 27 April 2012 20.41 BST

By Scott Lemieux
Scott Lemieux is a professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York, specialising in public law and constitutional law. He contributes to American Prospect and blogs for Lawyers, Guns and Money and TAPPED.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/27/supremely-republican-supreme-court



Some excerpts :

And earlier this week, what appears to be another imminent Roberts court attack on federal power could be seen at the oral arguments addressing the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial SB1070. Much of the legislation, which requires state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws, seems to directly contradict plenary federal powers over immigration and naturalization, but the court is very likely to uphold some or all of its provisions.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the oral argument – aside from yet more Fox News-style posturing by Scalia – was the fact that Chief Justice Roberts immediately announced that the potential for racial profiling not be considered by the court. This is a strange contention, given that the Arizona law requires local police to ascertain the immigration status of people "reasonably suspected" of being undocumented – a recipe for racial profiling if ever there was one. This is problematic not only because of human rights considerations, but because the need to protect civil rights is a crucial reason why the federal government wishes to preserve the uniform rules it is constitutionally entitled to make. In its zeal to side with the states over federal power, it looks as if the Roberts court will sweep legitimate federal powers, as well as the fourth and 14th amendments, under the rug.

The Republican party may have lost in 2008, but its political will still lives on in a Republican-dominated supreme court that, at times, cannot even bother to pretend that it is doing constitutional law.

**************