We’ve all heard about the Obama administration’s (DOJ) lawsuit against S.B. 1070, the one by the Phoenix Police Officer, the ACLU’s lawsuit, among several others. But each particular lawsuit is inherently flawed for fairly different reasons.

The DOJ suit is playing the supremacy clause card, stating the Feds have plenary jurisdiction over creating and enforcing immigration laws. If this is the case, why do municipal and state police also enforce drug laws? Is the DEA supreme in creating and enforcing illegal drug laws? No, I don’t think so. What about bank robbery? That’s a federal crime. Are local and state cops not allowed to arrest bank robbers? Of course they are. Illegal firearms? All the cops I know arrest folks for illegal possession of weapons all the time, even though there’s an ATF. Honestly, the DOJ is acting like Illegal Immigration laws are the only federal laws on the books. If this is their reasoning, I’d have to say their agenda is different; they just can’t state it out loud.

Phoenix Police Officer, David Salgado, joined with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) for his lawsuit. They are claiming, as the DOJ is, that S.B. 1070 was pre-empted by federal law. However, his other reason is that he believes the new law would violate plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights. The First Amendment issue makes no sense to me, because how does this law infringe upon anyone’s right to speech and/or assemble? As far as the Fourteenth Amendment rights go (“equal protection” clause), this could be claimed for any law on the books. Drug dealers claim this, prostitutes claim this, shoplifters claim this, and on and on, ad infinitum. I wonder if Officer Salgado has ever arrested any drug dealers, bank robbers, or any other kind of criminals that violate federal laws? By the way, Officer Salgado might want to clean up his own house before crying foul.

Tucson Police Officer, Martin Escobar, has his own individual lawsuit, claiming the law would force him to racially profile to enforce the law, thus violating the Fourth (unreasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendments (the right to not incriminate oneself, or the “due process” clause). That issue is addressed in the content of the law. The police cannot ask a person for their identification (or “papers, please,” as has been thrown around) unless they are already involved in a legitimate law enforcement contact. People are not going to be summarily plucked off the street for being OTC (other-than-Caucasian); that’s ludicrous on its face. Anybody who comes into contact with a police officer for legitimate law enforcement reasons is going to be asked for their ID (driver’s license), not their “papers.” This whole “papers, please” is a boondoggle to make people hearken back to the days of internment camps, political prisons, etc. It’s absolute nonsense. Beside, the same standard applies to Caucasians – “ID, please” when stopped by the police.

And one of the first suits brought after S.B. 1070’s passage was by D.C. Political Researcher, Roberto Frisancho, based on the unfounded belief that he will be “racially profiled” if he travels to Arizona this year. The racial profiling question has already been answered above, but I have a couple of suggestions for Mr. Frisancho: 1) Don’t go to Arizona this year, then you’ll have nothing to worry about; and 2) If you go to Arizona, don’t break any laws. How much more simple can it be than that? You’d think this would be a “class-action” suit, but no, it’s not. It’s just Mr. Frisancho. How pathetic can you be?

The others really are a composition of all the arguments previously addressed, but here you can see a graphic that explains all the current lawsuits in the pipeline.

Facts on the ground remain the same, as far as enforcement goes – Shariff Arpaio, with his awesome bad-self, is continuing to perform his raids and sweeps based on existing state law. So it seems to me, that this is all an exercise in futility for the plaintiffs in this case. I don’t know about you, but I’m about ready for a “loser pays” system. I’d like to see them pay Arizona’s legal fees when they lose these cases. If Arizona does not prevail, it will be a travesty of justice, but I think SCOTUS is probably chomping at the bit to get in on this action.

I say let’s get on with it.

P.S. I forgot to add my one main bitch about the opponents of this law: Every single damn one of them is presupposing that ALL cops everywhere are inherently racially-motivated just because of their jobs, and that without this state law in place, things would magically be different. Oh please.