New York Times (by Julia Preston): Hundreds of chanting demonstrators filled the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, denouncing an Arizona immigration law that was under debate inside, saying it would spread fear among Latinos in the state.
Protesters from Latino communities in Arizona, carrying crosses and images of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the patroness of Mexico, called on the justices to strike down the disputed provisions of the law, warning that they could unleash a wave of discrimination in the state.
But while the protesters, who also included labor and religious groups, denounced the civil rights abuses they said the law would bring, inside the court questions asked by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. early in the arguments clarified that the case did not directly concern racial profiling or other rights claims.
The justices heard arguments over a law, known as SB 1070, that Arizona passed in 2010 requiring the police to question people about immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant. On display inside and outside the court were the widely divergent perceptions of the issues at stake in the legal challenge to Arizona’s law between its critics and its proponents.
“The chief justice started off by making it clear this isn’t a case about profiling,” Paul D. Clement, who argued the case for Arizona, said after the hearing. “It’s really a case about pre-emption, and the relationship between the federal law and the state law.” He was referring to the Obama administration’s assertion that the federal government should take precedence over the states on immigration enforcement.
In Washington and around the country, protests against Arizona were far more numerous than public actions in support. Demonstrators in Washington chanted civil rights-era songs, and clergy members in white robes from several faiths led a silent march around the court building.
Georgina Sanchez, a protester who came from Phoenix, said families there that included illegal immigrants were worried the court would uphold the law. “The children live in fear that their parents will not come home one day,” she told the crowd.
But Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, a Republican, emerged from the hearing confident the state would prevail in the court’s ruling, which is expected in June.
“I am very, very encouraged that we will get a favorable result,” she said. She said the justices’ questions showed that “we do have sovereignty and we certainly have states’ rights, and we have a responsibility and an obligation to protect our citizens.”
Ms. Brewer accused the Obama administration of raising racial issues in its challenge to the law for political purposes, “trying to use that scare card to generate support for the election.”
After the hearing, as she was looking for the news media at the base of the court steps, Ms. Brewer instead wandered into the crowd of protesters, who surrounded her for a tense moment, shouting, “Shame, shame!” Eventually she found a location to address the news organizations and departed another way.
Others who supported Arizona were cheered by the arguments.
“The Justice Department was on the ropes,” said Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, a constitutional lawyer who advised Arizona on writing the law. “They were being pressed by the justices to explain the core weakness of their case, and that is there is no federal statute that conflicts with Arizona’s law.”
Among demonstrations in at least a dozen cities, in Phoenix on Wednesday protesters marched past the Police Department, the Maricopa County jail and the offices of federal immigration agents. Seven people were arrested outside immigration offices, The Associated Press said. In Boston, several hundred opponents of the Arizona law rallied outside the State House.
Lawyers opposing Arizona contended that it was difficult to tell how the justices might decide. But they said other lawsuits have been filed against SB 1070 by civil and immigrant rights organizations, which have not moved forward while the Supreme Court heard the Obama administration’s case.
Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center, in California, said his group had participated in a lawsuit based directly on civil rights, which is currently in federal district court in Phoenix.
“Our challenge really gets to the discriminatory intent and impact of the law,” Mr. Joaquin said.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides in the current case, the others will still advance, he said.
Latino advocates said the legal issues could not be separated from the Arizona law’s impact on immigrant communities.
“We regard this as the biggest civil rights case of our time,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration for the National Council of La Raza.
“If the court decides to uphold, without a doubt that would be a call to action for Latinos,” she said. “We need to realize that our position in this country is being challenged.”
Protesters from Latino communities in Arizona, carrying crosses and images of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the patroness of Mexico, called on the justices to strike down the disputed provisions of the law, warning that they could unleash a wave of discrimination in the state.
But while the protesters, who also included labor and religious groups, denounced the civil rights abuses they said the law would bring, inside the court questions asked by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. early in the arguments clarified that the case did not directly concern racial profiling or other rights claims.
The justices heard arguments over a law, known as SB 1070, that Arizona passed in 2010 requiring the police to question people about immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant. On display inside and outside the court were the widely divergent perceptions of the issues at stake in the legal challenge to Arizona’s law between its critics and its proponents.
“The chief justice started off by making it clear this isn’t a case about profiling,” Paul D. Clement, who argued the case for Arizona, said after the hearing. “It’s really a case about pre-emption, and the relationship between the federal law and the state law.” He was referring to the Obama administration’s assertion that the federal government should take precedence over the states on immigration enforcement.
In Washington and around the country, protests against Arizona were far more numerous than public actions in support. Demonstrators in Washington chanted civil rights-era songs, and clergy members in white robes from several faiths led a silent march around the court building.
Georgina Sanchez, a protester who came from Phoenix, said families there that included illegal immigrants were worried the court would uphold the law. “The children live in fear that their parents will not come home one day,” she told the crowd.
But Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, a Republican, emerged from the hearing confident the state would prevail in the court’s ruling, which is expected in June.
“I am very, very encouraged that we will get a favorable result,” she said. She said the justices’ questions showed that “we do have sovereignty and we certainly have states’ rights, and we have a responsibility and an obligation to protect our citizens.”
Ms. Brewer accused the Obama administration of raising racial issues in its challenge to the law for political purposes, “trying to use that scare card to generate support for the election.”
After the hearing, as she was looking for the news media at the base of the court steps, Ms. Brewer instead wandered into the crowd of protesters, who surrounded her for a tense moment, shouting, “Shame, shame!” Eventually she found a location to address the news organizations and departed another way.
Others who supported Arizona were cheered by the arguments.
“The Justice Department was on the ropes,” said Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, a constitutional lawyer who advised Arizona on writing the law. “They were being pressed by the justices to explain the core weakness of their case, and that is there is no federal statute that conflicts with Arizona’s law.”
Among demonstrations in at least a dozen cities, in Phoenix on Wednesday protesters marched past the Police Department, the Maricopa County jail and the offices of federal immigration agents. Seven people were arrested outside immigration offices, The Associated Press said. In Boston, several hundred opponents of the Arizona law rallied outside the State House.
Lawyers opposing Arizona contended that it was difficult to tell how the justices might decide. But they said other lawsuits have been filed against SB 1070 by civil and immigrant rights organizations, which have not moved forward while the Supreme Court heard the Obama administration’s case.
Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center, in California, said his group had participated in a lawsuit based directly on civil rights, which is currently in federal district court in Phoenix.
“Our challenge really gets to the discriminatory intent and impact of the law,” Mr. Joaquin said.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides in the current case, the others will still advance, he said.
Latino advocates said the legal issues could not be separated from the Arizona law’s impact on immigrant communities.
“We regard this as the biggest civil rights case of our time,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration for the National Council of La Raza.
“If the court decides to uphold, without a doubt that would be a call to action for Latinos,” she said. “We need to realize that our position in this country is being challenged.”
No comments:
Post a Comment