Not long ago the country's Latino community was abuzz with the news that the Obama administration would protect our DREAM students from deportation. A week later the euphoria is being tested by the Supreme Court's decision in the anti-immigrant case Arizona v. U.S. which demurred on the legality of the state's "show me your papers" provision but clearly noted that Arizona overstepped its authority on every other aspect of SB 1070. Not a complete victory, but not a total loss either.
At issue in Arizona v. U.S. was a narrow set of claims. The case addresses the constitutional concepts of preemption and the Supremacy Clause. In short, since the Constitution grants exclusive control over immigration and naturalization to Congress, all States are preempted from enacting laws that interfere with the federal role in this important area. Only four provisions from the law, SB 1070, were on appeal: Section 2(B),the "show me your papers" provision, authorizes local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped on "reasonable suspicion" that they're in Arizona illegally; Section 3 criminalized the federal civil violation of being present in the country without registration documents; Section 5(C) criminalized any person without federal work authorization from seeking work or working in Arizona; and Section 6 authorizes local law enforcement to arrest without a warrant any person they have probable cause to believe committed an offense punishable by deportation.
In a 5 to 3 decision Justice Kennedy exalted the importance of speaking about immigration from the perspective of "one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states." The court struck down 3 portions of Arizona's encroaching law: criminalizing the failure to register; authorizing local police to arrest without a warrant; and criminalizing those unauthorized immigrants from soliciting or working in the state. The importance of rejecting this last provision, Section 5 (c), cannot be gainsaid: Day laborers throughout the country have been harassed and criminally profiled for the simple act of looking for work. LatinoJustice has represented many of them in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and now in Alabama and South Carolina. Only the federal government can strike a careful balance between the competing needs of the country when it comes to the employment undocumented workers. This is a major victory for Latino communities.
But there is still one to go. The Court refused to categorically reject the "show me your papers" provision of SB 1070 by deferring until the courts below can learn if it would be implemented in a way that would interfere with federal immigration policy. In short, they demurred. And in doing so they have yet to see the consequences of a state law that could easily feed the insatiable appetite of law enforcement to racially profile Latino communities. As President Obama noted after reading the opinion: "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like." We couldn't agree more. Luckily, the Supreme Court left the door open to the next challenge to Section 2 (B). So its pronouncement is not the final word on the wisdom or constitutionality of Section 2 (B). And in this regard LatinoJustice PRLDEF will be vigilantly monitoring all the states we work in to ensure that law enforcement does not engage in racial profiling against Latinos. We applaud Attorney General Holder's promise to step up civil rights enforcement in any state that abuses Latino rights based on this decision. It is what we expect and demand from this administration.
The rash of anti-immigrant, read: anti-Latino, state laws are not going away with this important decision from the Supreme Court - although they have been dealt a serious blow. These laws promote racial profiling, deny equal justice and run counter to our economic interests at a time when our economic recovery is fragile. Many states are turning towards a commonsense approach to these legislative proposals once they appreciate the negative impact that the loss of immigrant labor has on local economies. Professional law enforcement associations know full well that their departments are not equipped to learn the intricacies of immigration law and that by focusing on these new tasks that divert law enforcement resources, public safety could be imperiled.
Arizona's "show me your papers" provision represents the wrong approach to the challenges America faces at present. It diverts us from our real priorities and sends a message that targeting Latino residents, immigrants and citizens is fair game. LatinoJustice PRLDEF stands ready to join our resources to combat the worse aspects of these anti-Latino laws.
Three down, one to go. This will not be the last word on this issue.
Follow Juan Cartagena on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@latinojustice
Arizona and Alabama laws also played a role to reduce overall illegal migrant entries into U.S.
Let's hope all laws passed by lawmakers are as effective.
I think you mean 3 down, 11 upheld.
There were 14 total provisions of SB 1070, only 4 were challenged, of which 3 lost.
Can you bring a math book along with you when you cross la frontera, por favor ?
"show me your papers" provision has already been a federal law for many years. Involving local police just puts more manpower on the problem and that's what illegal aliens don't want. They want to continue to operate outside the law as they always have. Every year more and more bills and laws against illegal aliens will be enacted.
Bi-Partisan illegal alien Enforcement Bill Offered in Massachusetts
"Require the Executive Office of Oublic Safety to comply with the federal program Secure Communites. Secure Communities is a partnership between local law enforcement and DHS that checks the immigration status of anyone jailed in a local jail.Requires that individuals charged with certain crimes have their immigration status checked.Increases penalties for the creation, dissemination, and use of false identification materials.Requires public contractors to ensure that there workforce is legally authorized to work in the United States.Denies illegal aliens access to welfare benefits and in-state tuition.Deny illegal aliens access to state subsidized housing and empowers local officials to better enforce local coding to ensure that single-family housing units don't become multi-family housing units."
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/september-27-2011/bi-partisan-immigration-enforcement-bill-offered-massachusetts.html
Technology, for example retinal scanning, which can identify a person as accurately as a fingerprint, without intrusion, can be used. Since the scan would not be selective, every person who passed would be checked, constitutional issues are completely avoided.
We could install ID stations in shopping malls, banks, and grocery stores. A 100% effective solution could be operational in 18 months.
We should relax and let technology perform a task, where the alternative, asking police to filter for illegals, raises legitimate concerns.
Then when ever a Latino motorist is pulled over and asked to "show his papers" for frivolous reasons, I suggest PRLDEF sue the state of Arizona. Hit Arizona where it hurts the most. That's the best way to get rid of the remnants of SB 1070.
Fact - if you look at the 14 provisions that were originally part of SB1070, the vast majority were in fact allowed to stand. So this provides not only a template but legal precedent for other states to now launch their own bills without fear of being enjoined by the courts.
Fact is that illegals simply have no case and local enforcement is an imperative sanctioned by Congress. No amount of maneuvering or posturing will change that.
It cost Arizona less than 1% of their tourism economy.
"they have yet to see the consequences of a state law that could easily feed the insatiable appetite of law enforcement to racially profile Latino communities."
Really? So what you are saying is that law enforcement sees it's only purpose as harassing Latinos, citizen or not? Even though most illegal aliens in Arizona ARE Latino and they are so numerous that they feel they have the strength in numbers to make demands? And their countries are often party to or driver in the lawsuits? There is good reason to remove them.
And since the Arizona laws were based on Federal law, Is the ultimate goal of pro-illegal alien advocates to dismantle the immigration laws of the United States without any reciprocity from the countries demanding it? It's not the fact that there are state laws, but that there are laws at all?
American citizens are expected to show ID when it is requested by law enforcement. There is absolutely no reason why foreigners should not be held to the same.
To yell racial profiling when there is no evidence whatsoever is what will get the cases thrown out and to accuse officers of it prematurely shows your own racism
Anyone booked into jail will be run through all available criminal databases. If illegal foreign nationals don't like the chance of being discovered, they should take comfort in the fact that American criminals don't like it either.
Illegals are also being told that 287 (g) has been suspended and that AZ law officers are now powerless to enforce immigration law or to arrest them. This is simply not true since only roving ICE patrols have been suspended since they have been superseded by the fact that now all AZ police officers will in effect be roving immigration patrols.
Under the balance of the existing provisions of 287 (g) AZ state and local officers will continue to have extensive immigration enforcement power, including issuing immigration detainers, processing people for immigration violations, and preparing immigration charging documents.