NEW YORK TIMES (Article by Jennifer Preston): Immigrant rights groups said they worried that the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday allowing a key provision in Arizona’s tough immigration law to stand would lead to racial profiling, as Gov. Jan Brewer described the decision as “a victory for the rule of law.”
Jan Brewer@GovBrewer
Supreme Court has upheld what Arizonans knew all along - states have a right and responsibility to protect their citizens. A proud day!
“It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” said Ms. Brewer, whose administration defended the law.
As my colleagues Adam Liptak and John H. Cushman Jr. report, the Supreme Court rejected provisions of the law that would have required immigrants to register with the federal government and would have made it a state crime for immigrants to hold jobs without proper documents.
In the 5-to-3 ruling, the court also struck down part of the law that would have allowed the police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally, without a warrant. But the court ruled in favor of a key provision enabling the state to require the police to check the immigration status of people they detain.
Ali Noorani@anoorani
#SCOTUS #SB1070 ruling allows enforcement of law that codifies racial profiling. —@anoorani. bit.ly/LaBELg #immigration
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, called the provision that the Supreme Court allowed “the pointy end of the sword of the Arizona immigration law.”
“Just as the nation is inching closer to a consensus on the need for solutions on immigration, the Supreme Court is dividing the nation,” he said.
In Arizona, Puente Arizona, an immigration rights group, said its members would continue to fight the state law, known as S.B. 1070. The group is also calling on the Obama administration, which fought the state law in court, to limit access of Arizona’s law enforcement officers to data and resources of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Puente Arizona @PuenteAZ
BREAKING: TELL THE PRESIDENT TO STOP #SB1070. bit.ly/potus1070 #justice4az CUT OFF ARIZONA'S ACCESS TO ICE
Puente Arizona @PuenteAZ
We never had faith in the #SCOTUS case. We have faith in our people bit.ly/1070calltoacti… WE WILL NOT COMPLY #sb1070 #justice4az
In an interview, the group’s leader, Carlos Garcia, said the ruling paved the way for “racial profiling” statewide.
“It’s what we lived under Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and now it’s expanded to the whole state,” he said, referring to the controversial Maricopa County sheriff, who is known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigration and crackdowns on illegal immigrants. “Sheriff Arpaio has been vindicated and allowed to continue his abuse and racial profiling.”
On Monday, Mr. Arpaio said on a local television station, KNXV, that “this is a good section that’s been upheld.”
“I would have liked to see where we would have the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being here illegally and book them into our jails, but that’s not going to happen,” he said about one of the provisions in the law that was rejected. “But I think this sends a message that we will be involved in enforcing the illegal alien laws and our police officers will be able to at least try to determine if they’re in this country illegally.”
Attorney General Thomas Horne said the state won the “big one” of the provisions challenged.
Todd Landfried, a spokesman for Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, said, “We hope that this important decision will discourage states from considering state-level immigration laws and push Congress to directly address the issue of immigration reform expeditiously in a practical and positive manner that helps our businesses, economy and country succeed and grow while ensuring our nation’s security.”
Caroline Isaacs, director of the American Friends Service Committee’s Tucson office, saw the Supreme Court’s decision as upholding the “worst part of this mean-spirited law, even as it overturns other sections. In effect, it legalizes racial profiling. How can law enforcement know a person’s immigration status simply by looking at them? Most troubling is this decision undermines the moral fiber of the U.S. Constitution, and can be used by other states to enact laws that also enable racial profiling.”
Greg Stanton, the mayor of Phoenix, said the decision “is a stark reminder of the need for Congress to act immediately on comprehensive immigration reform. It also reminds us that our State Legislature should stop focusing on divisive issues and instead spend their time on job creation and smart economic development for the state of Arizona.”
The ruling prompted rallies and protests at the Capitol, with Puente Arizona urging its members also to show up outside federal immigration offices later on Monday.
Adios Arpaio@AdiosArpaio
The altar of hope by @PromiseArizona #SB1070 vigil at #AZ Capitol. #justice4az #respeto pic.twitter.com/LG3kbfSl
maryjpitzl@maryjpitzl
Anti SB 1070 rally at Capitol pic.twitter.com/juDpAuW2
In the last two years, five other states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona’s law. Parts of those laws also were on pause pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
Civil rights groups that separately challenged the law over concerns that it would lead to rights abuses said their lawsuits would go on.
Even with the limitations that the Supreme Court put on Arizona, the immigration status check will lead to racial profiling and discrimination, said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“We are not done in Arizona and will continue the battle against discriminatory laws like these that encourage racial profiling and undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” Mr. Romero said. “Be it in the courts or in state legislatures, we will aggressively take on these laws and blunt the effects of this miscarriage of justice. When local police can stop and detain anyone they perceive as ‘foreign’ because of their skin color, their accent or their surname, it is a watershed moment for civil rights.”
Ms. Brewer also said in her statement that she was confident that Arizona’s law enforcement officers would apply this law in an “even-handed manner.”
“I know the state of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task,” she said. “The case for S.B. 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.”
No comments:
Post a Comment