The U.S. Supreme Court said it will consider reviewing the controversial Arizona law that allows local police and prosecutors to use profiling methods to crack down on undocumented immigration. The decision in this case has far-reaching implications for other such laws in Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama. It will most certainly also be impactful to the 2012 elections. This country needs to find a more humane way of dealing with immigration and I hope the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. By the way, I have come across many Caribbeans who seem to think this is a Latino issue – WAKE UP! This is not a Latino issue, its a human rights issue which means it affects all of us including Caribbean nationals.
Profiling and de facto legalization of civil libertities abuses is not what the United States of America should be known for. The millions and millions of immigrants living in this country are not leaving any time soon. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the laws in a manner respectful of the fact that this country was built by immigrants especially the most well known undocumented immigrants African slaves!!!
The court will hear Arizonas appeal of a ruling that said the state was interfering with the federal governments authority over immigration policy. Arizona, which says its 370- mile border with Mexico is the crossing point for half the nations illegal immigrants, contends it has the right to tackle a problem that the national government has failed to address.
The lower court ruling leaves Arizona and its people to suffer from a serious problem without any realistic legal tools for addressing it, Arizona and its Republican governor, Jan Brewer, argued in their appeal. They are represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.
As with health care, the case is a test of federalism, pitting the federal government against a collection of states. Arizona has support at the high court from 11 other states, including Alabama, which is defending its own illegal- immigration crackdown against an Obama administration lawsuit.
Ultimate Authority
Justice Elena Kagan, who formerly served as Obamas top Supreme Court lawyer, didnt take part in the courts decision to hear the case.
The administration, which urged the justices to reject the Arizona appeal without a hearing, said the law conflicts with Supreme Court decisions establishing that the federal government is the ultimate authority on immigration. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that while states can cooperate in enforcing federal policy, they cant challenge it.
The Arizona provisions do not represent an effort to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing federal immigration law, argued Verrilli, the administrations top Supreme Court lawyer. Instead, they are designed to establish Arizonas own immigration policy, attrition through enforcement, to supplant what the governor called in her signing statement the federal governments misguided policy.
Justice Department Challenge
The Justice Department sued to challenge the Arizona measure, and a San Francisco-based federal appeals court blocked it from taking effect in April.
Arizonas law, known as S.B. 1070, requires police officers to check immigration status when they arrest or stop someone and have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
The measure also requires registered immigrants to carry documentation with them at all times, or be subject to 30 days imprisonment. In addition, the Arizona law makes it a state crime to violate federal registration requirements.
The statute, the first of its kind when signed into law last year, inspired the enactment of similar laws around the country. Arizona is now one of at least 10 states that check immigration status during investigations, arrests or jail bookings, according to the appeal.
A ruling striking down the Arizona law potentially would put more focus on the federal governments role in stopping illegal immigration, increasing the importance of the issue in next years presidential campaign.
The justices divided along ideological lines in May when they upheld a separate Arizona law that threatens companies with loss of their corporate charters if they hire illegal immigrants. The 5-3 ruling said a federal law governing immigrant hiring leaves room for states to impose their own penalties for non-compliance.
The court will likely hear arguments in April and, as with health care, rule around the end of June.
The case is Arizona v. United States, 11-182.
SOURCE: Bloomberg
