What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Under the 4th Amendment exceptions to detainment can be made...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

And here the courts found that stopping people who look like they are of Mexican ancestory is legal:


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=428&invol=543

Absolutely, I think i pointed out earlier (days ago) that the Court had ruled that racial profiling in that manner to be legal, under limited circumstances (checkpoints).

Does the AZ law go beyond that?

In another case, the Court of Appeals ruled that “Hispanic appearance is not, in general, an appropriate factor” for determining suspicion, especially in areas with large Hispanic populations."

United States v. Montero-Camargo

Another precedent perhaps, not directly on immigration, but on the issue of supremacy clause and the matter of sedition (catching commies, not illegals):

Nelson, a member of the Communist Party, was convicted of violating the Pennsylvania Sedition Act. This Act was implemented prior to Congress's adoption of the Smith Act of 1940 (amended in 1948) which prohibited the same conduct as Pennsylvania's law.

The Court held that Pennsylvania's law was unenforceable and was superseded by the federal act. Chief Justice Warren argued that the scheme of federal regulation of seditious activities was "pervasive" and "left no room for the states to supplement it." Furthermore, the federal act dealt with an issue of primary importance to the national government which made any enforcement of similar state laws potentially harmful to the smooth execution of national statutes

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_10

That is why, IMO, as I have said repeatedly, it is for the federal courts to make that determination.