Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called a news conference in Phoenix after the Supreme Court released its ruling on her state's "papers, please" immigration law. She announced that the key components of her law "unanimously have been vindicated by the highest court in the land." She beamed as she called the decision "a victory for the rule of law."
Watching her on live TV, I was a bit confused. The Supreme Court struck down nearly all of Arizona's law, on a 5-3 vote. Aside from not being "unanimous," I wouldn't call that being "vindicated," let alone scoring a "victory." Let's unpack the Supreme Court ruling and see what it really means -- and why it matters.
The Supreme Court reviewed four parts of the law known as SB 1070. One section made it a crime for undocumented people to be in the state. A second section made it a crime for undocumented people to work or look for work. A third section allowed warrantless searches of undocumented people by the police. And a fourth required that the police check the immigration status of anyone they stopped whom they suspected of being undocumented.
The Court tossed out three sections of SB 1070 as unconstitutional, deciding that that Arizona had overstepped its authority by going beyond federal law. Under the Constitution's supremacy clause, the Court noted, only the federal government can set immigration policy. The reasoning behind this is simple. What would happen if each state decided to pass its own immigration laws? We would end up with at least 50 different immigration policies, maybe more if the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other non-state jurisdictions followed suit.
The Court didn't strike down the most controversial part of SB 1070 -- the requirement that the police check people's papers if officers suspect they are undocumented. Yet the Court noted that if Arizona didn't apply this part of its immigration law with great care, the Supremes are likely to conduct a future review of this section. So much for that "victory" Brewer claimed. At best, the Court took a "wait and see" approach on one out of the law's four sections.
Arizona's immigration law puts state and local police in a tough spot. In a state where roughly one in three people is Latino, how can officers decide who is undocumented and who is not? If they make a judgment based on whether people are speaking Spanish or have an accent, the police can wind up being sued for civil rights violations.
But another part of Arizona's controversial law allows citizens to sue their local law enforcement officers if they believe they are not fully enforcing SB 1070. So Arizona police and sheriffs can be sued if they racially profile people. And they can be sued if they don't. How crazy is that?
Realistically, Arizona's immigration law is sure to wind up before the Supreme Court again. Latino advocacy groups and the American Civil Liberties Union have plans to sue based on civil rights violations. After all, if you live in Arizona and your name is Smith, the police are unlikely to ask you for immigration papers if they pull you over for speeding. However, if your last name is Gonzalez, you could be asked to prove your citizenship or permanent residency status. That's a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause, which says all people must be treated equally under the law.
Americans should be concerned about this immigration law's fate because Arizona has inspired copycat laws across the country, from Utah to Georgia. Mitt Romney, who advocated the bizarre concept of self-deportation as an immigration policy during the GOP primaries, has called SB 1070 "a model for the nation." Like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Republican Party's all-but-official presidential nominee should take another look at the Supreme Court's ruling. Not only is SB 1070 mostly illegal, it is offensive, unjust, and truly un-American.
Cross-posted at OtherWords.org.
Follow Raul A. Reyes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RaulAReyes
Anti-marijuana Coloradans use Arizona immigration ruling
Leaders react to ruling on Arizona's immigration law
Arizona Immigration Ruling Gives Both Sides Something to Crow, and Cry, About
Insulted by the right - and the left - during elections
Williams: Watson largely wrong on immigration bills
Rep. Gutierrez rips Arizona immigration law
Students attend forum to learn about deportation moratorium
The concept of making something which is illegal inconvenient and impractical and thus getting less of it vs. making it easier and thus getting more of it. The only people that strikes as odd are open border zealots. Any suggestion that not every person present in the country unlawfully, now and going forward, should just get to stay forever is met with "That's crazy!" When it comes to state laws like 1070, they sanctimoniously cite Supremacy Clause and say "Sorry, but it's the federal government's job" OK, what federal programs do they support instead to control immigration? It's always nothing--they hate 287g, Secure Communities, E-Verify, etc. Here's an example. They used to complain about the once in a blue moon raids of illegal employers under Bush. Obama listens to these anti-enforcement activists (some of whom are in his administration) and thought I-9 audits would go over better with the "stakeholders". Guess again. They call audits "paper raids" and whine they're worse than actual raids. You get the picture. Everything is a civil rights crisis. Everything is un-American. The control of who resides here is not a legitimate concern governmental concern and immigration law itself is unjust. Thus, nothing will satisfy them except zero enforcement.
I dont see why Arizona cant enforce 1070 without discriminating against latinos . They could ask everyone to show evidence of legal status. Also they could use other indicators such as lack of ability to speak English, even though some people who speak no English have legal status.
The supreme court may have held that Arizona can't make it a criminal offense to work or look for work in Arizona but that doesn't mean that illegals cant be prevented from working in Arizona , it just means that illegals who are working can be sent back to their countries but not tried, convicted and sent to jail We dont want to pay to house them in jails here anyway.
Presto. Problem solved.
Why doesn't anyone ever comment on the racial cleansing that is happening in Mexico? The Aztec linage is being purged by the Spanish linage, that's not news or racism?
Why would I get upset if they checked me out? I would no more get upset over that then if I heard a male robbed a bank and they didn't stop women but only men.
About 80% of more of the illegals in this country are hispanic. AZ is on the border with a hispanic country and they likely have the most illegals per capita of that group. It probably approaches about 40-50% of all hispanics. But yet by your logic they should be spending as much time stopping non-hispanics as hispanics?
I suppose next you will demand beer companies stop marketing to men and spend just as much time marketing to women?
It is not simply "checking out." You must have proof of citizenship to their satisfaction. Do you carry proof of citizenship TO THEIR SATISFACTION whenever you go anywhere? And if your documents appear to be "suspicious," they may detain you until your documents are thoroughtly scrutinized. That is the law. Humans enforce those laws. Many humans are prejudiced.
How, without referring to any stereotype about Hispanic Americans, can you tell who is hispanic and who is not? Speak with an accent? Stereotyping. Phenotype? Stereotyping. Behaviors? Definitely stereotyping. Many Hispanic Americans speak "english," have all sorts of different phenotypes and act just as "American" as any of us. Isn't the same true for Americans with Middle Eastern origins? Just wait until some of our prejudiced "anti-immigrant" people discover that there are illegal aliens from the Middle East, too. Then watch what happens.
I never said a single thing about who they should be stopping. Please reread my post. This time for comprehension.
Marketing beer? What does that have to do with my post?
"This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law asinterpreted and applied after it goes into effect."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/sb1070-ruling-supreme-court_n_1614119.html
So, in other words, it is not over and future challenges will depend upon the implementation. The first time a citizen is detained over a jay walking or speeding ticket the challenge will begin and AZ will loose again.
Come on our borders have to be watched and closed. People stop hiring these people, there are enough american's out of work. States are out of money, our kids are getting 2nd rate education because we supply, hire and give services to too many illegals. So tired of all the "nino" crap. If your are hiding then get out of here and back where you came from
Then when the wall is done, add broken glass all along the top with razr wire. On our side, lay a minefield 1/2 mile wide, and after that, for anor 1/2 mile lay supersoft sand. At the end, install remote machineguns that fire from a bunker. Place sound sensors all around in this supursoft sand. If a sensor picks up a sound, the machinegun will spray the area for 5 seconds. All guns will be hooked up to computers that tell us the remaining ammo and any maintenance. Warning signs will be posted on the other side. Stand in line,get your Visa 0r Green Card LEGALLY, or face the consequences!
Scalia is a very wise Judge.
A Sovereign State! Isn't that the way it was meant to be for ALL FREE States of our UNION?”
He has NEVER written anything that does not side with illegals.
he has never offered any solution to the problem that doesn't include amnesty for illegals and no rational enforcement.
But the biggie-
He's an attorney and NEVER in the history of this country does an attorney do anything they don't profit from.
Add in their kids, their spouses, cousins, grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters who were all daisy chained into this country and you are talking at least 15 million democrat voters. Do you really think the dem party sees this issue in any other light?