USA / FILE: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants

Record ID: 590929

  • Title: USA / FILE: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants
  • Date: 26th June 2012
  • Summary: SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES (FILE - SEPTEMBER 8, 2010) (REUTERS) MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD WITH BINOCULARS ON LOOK OUT ON BORDER VARIOUS BORDER AREA AND FENCE TEENAGERS WALKING IN STREETS OVER THE BORDER IN TIJUANA NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS ON LOOK OUT
  • Embargoed: 11th July 2012 13:00
  • Keywords:
  • Location: Usa
  • Country: USA
  • Reuters ID: LVA6D4GIDE8CW9ARBZSITY3WHDO3
  • Story Text: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday (June 25), but struck down three other parts of the state law, delivering a mixed ruling for the Obama administration on federal power to enforce immigration statutes in the United States. But in a split verdict, the justices also ruled that the three other provisions of the Western state's 2010 law that were challenged in court by the Obama administration went too far.
    In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the country's highest court by an 8-0 vote upheld the Arizona law's most controversial aspect, Section 2B, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for any reason. Kennedy said the mandatory nature of police checks did not interfere with the federal immigration scheme, and found unpersuasive the Obama administration's argument that this portion of the law must be pre-empted at this stage.
    Republican Governor Jan Brewer hailed Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold Section 2B of the law which Brewer referred to as the "heart of the law." Brewer described the Court's decision as a "vindication."
    "Today was a day when the key components of our efforts - to protect the citizens of Arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional community has been vindicated by in the highest court in the land," said Brewer.
    Outside the Supreme Court, opponents of the Arizona law were disappointed about the decision to uphold the provision of the law related to police checks and said it created "racial profiling."
    "It basically is allowing law enforcement to go forward and racially profile poor people and people of color. We believe that this is a decision that does set back civil rights," said Marielena Hincapie, Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center.
    But the court struck down three of the four provisions of the law, leading others who opposed the Arizona law to declare an overall victory. The votes on the three provisions overruled by the court were either 5-3 or 6-2, with the more conservative justices in dissent. These three provisions required immigrants to carry immigration papers at all times, banned illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places, and allowed police to arrest immigrants without warrants if officers believed they committed crimes that would make them deportable.
    On the basis of the Court's decision on these three provisions, activists and some state legislators in Arizona said the ruling sent a message to the Governor that the matter of immigration had to be enforced by the federal government and not by state laws.
    "This morning the U.S. Supreme Court sent a loud message to the Governor and members of the legislature that you have overstepped your bounds. You have gone too far when it comes to try to deal with illegal immigration in Arizona, that immigration is a federal issue and has to be dealt with on the federal level," said Steve Gallardo, Arizona state senator.
    Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 25-page opinion stating that Arizona could not undermine federal jurisdiction in immigration law. Justice Kennedy stressed that the federal government has "broad, undoubted power" over immigration, pointing to how federal policy could affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations.
    Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said the Court's decision did, however, underline a state role in immigration.
    "I think the Court upheld the ability of the local government to assist the federal government in immigration laws meaning that they have the authority under reasonable suspicion to question someone who's already been apprehended to certify whether they have legal status in Arizona," Brewer said.
    According to a Department of Homeland Security official, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, the federal government may not accept every individual for deportation arrested under Section 2B. In addition, federal officials will not take action when receiving calls from state or local authorities requesting assistance, unless the individuals arrested meet federal priorities for deportation, the official said. Deportation priorities factor in: criminal records; previous removal from the United States; and the level to which an individual poses a security threat to the United States, according to an official with the Department of Homeland Security.
    The decision was, in part, an election-year setback for President Barack Obama, but was less of a defeat than some had expected. The majority opinion's sweeping rhetoric could cloud state efforts to try to curb illegal immigration.
    The Supreme Court decision touches upon a key issue for many voters. One advocate for immigrant rights said that there would be repercussions at the ballot box in November, with many Latinos voting against lawmakers in support of restrictive immigration laws like that of Arizona.
    "We will, in fact say, this law is wrong, it will be overturned by the power of our votes and we will make sure that we have an immigrant system that will do justice to a country of immigrants," said Eliseo Medina with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
    Opinion polls show Hispanics, now equal to 16 percent of all Americans, overwhelmingly support Obama. Most illegal immigrants are Hispanics.
    Obama has vowed to push for comprehensive immigration legislation if re-elected on November 6.
    The ruling went to the heart of a fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over the 11.5 million illegal immigrants the U.S. government estimates to be in the country.
    Arizona, on the southwest border with Mexico, two years ago became the first of half a dozen U.S. states to adopt laws to drive illegal immigrants out. About 360,000 of the country's illegal immigrants, or 3 percent, reside in Arizona. Most of the state's nearly 2 million Hispanics are in the country legally.
  • Copyright Holder: FILE REUTERS (CAN SELL)
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register