THE ACLU GOES AFTER ARIZONA LAW

May 18, 2010

The ACLU has issued a press advisory on the federal court case it filed Monday against Arizona's new law concerning illegal aliens. The suit is actually in favor of open borders, and is based on a misreading of the federal and state laws and the relevant facts. Those errors are shared by many in the press.

The facts for this article, but not its legal conclusions, come from an article in the Phoenix New Times Blog on 14 May, 2010. That article is based on a press advisory from the ACLU that it will sue on behalf of a "coalition of groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)."

All but one of these organizations are known to favor open borders, which means that anyone who can get into the US by whatever means, is entitled to stay here and claim all the benefits and privileges of US citizens, The puzzling participant is the NAACP. Its leaders are apparently unaware that black Americans are being specially impacted in the current recession, and that their unemployment is related to the millions of Mexican citizens who are in the US now, holding US jobs.

According to the ACLU, and repeated as true by this article, the new Arizona law would involve "racial discrimination" because it would empower Arizona police to "demand papers" from anyone suspected of being an illegal alien. The new law does no such thing. It only requires an inquiry on citizenship AFTER there has been a legitimate stop made on a basis other than immigration. The reporter on this article, like Attorney General Eric Holder, has reached a judgment on this law without bothering to read it.

Also, there is a federal legal requirement that all aliens who are in the US legally for any of a variety of reasons, must physically carry documents establishing their legal right to be here. A little light reading on the federal statutes would confirm this.

The article concludes that the Arizona law is an effort to "drive brown people out of the US." This is a gross insult to the millions of people of Mexican descent who live in Arizona and are naturalized citizens, or who were born as American citizens, going back five generations or more. But it is sometimes the habit of the ACLU, and the reporters who follow the ACLU line, to insult the very people in whose name they claim they are acting.

Finally, a charge of discrimination depends on facts. It is easy to establish that about 95% of the illegal immigrants coming into the US through Arizona are Mexican citizens. If it turns out that at least 95% of the persons stopped under the new Arizona law and turned over to ICE for deportation are Mexican citizens, then there is zero discrimination under this law.

On legal and factual grounds, the case about to be filed by the ACLU should be thrown out.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.