Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Capital News
A person prays during a protest in front of the US Supreme Court, on April 25, 2012 in Washington, DC/AFP


Supreme Court upholds key Arizona immigration law

A person prays during a protest in front of the US Supreme Court, on April 25, 2012 in Washington, DC/AFP

WASHINGTON, Jun 26 – The US Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona’s new immigration law but let stand a key provision requiring police spot-checks that critics say amount to racial profiling.

Arizona’s Republican governor Jan Brewer hailed a “legal victory” and said the highest court in the land had ruled that the “heart” of the draconian law was constitutional and could now be enforced.

President Barack Obama voiced concern that the controversial “check your papers” provision had not been invalidated, saying: “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”

Opponents of the law took heart from the fact that the Supreme Court abolished three quarters of the provisions and the fourth element perhaps has only a temporary reprieve because the legislation is yet to be implemented.

The Arizona law has aroused intense controversy because of a particular provision, 2(B), that requires police to demand proof of citizenship of anyone they stop and suspect of being illegal, even without probable cause.

In a victory for Obama’s Republicans opponents, justices unanimously refused to strike down the key clause, as they said it was unclear, before the law’s actual implementation, that it raised constitutional concerns.

“It was improper to enjoin 2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that 2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives,” said the ruling, which left the matter open to future challenges.

Justices rejected a series of other provisions, including those that would have criminalized immigrants for failing to register with the federal government, or for seeking work or working without proper documents.

They also struck down a clause that would have allowed police to arrest those suspected of being deportable without a warrant.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Frank Jannuzi, head of Amnesty International’s Washington office, welcomed the broader tenor of the ruling, but said: “We are disappointed that the court failed to draw a clearer line in the sand against racial profiling.”

Senator Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on immigration and a senior Democrat, called it “as strong a repudiation of the Arizona law as one could expect” before it goes into effect.

“The court is sending a stern warning to Arizona that the provision allowing local law enforcement to check people’s immigration documents cannot be implemented in a discriminatory or draconian way, or it will be thrown out like the rest of the law.”

Obama’s Republican challenger for the White House in November, Mitt Romney, used the ruling to attack the president for making broken immigration promises.

“As candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But four years later, we are still waiting,” Romney said in a statement.

Obama’s so far unfulfilled 2008 vow to bring more than 10 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows, which is opposed by conservatives, is emerging as a key issue in the 2012 election, as he courts vital Hispanic voters.

Earlier this month, Obama infuriated illegal immigration hawks by offering those brought to America illegally, between the ages of 16 and 30, work permits and a two year stay of deportation proceedings.

In a withering and highly political dissenting opinion to Monday’s ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the Obama administration for its “lax federal enforcement” of immigration laws.

“To say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

“Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws?”

The Supreme Court ruling on immigration comes amid fevered anticipation of an even weightier decision on the constitutionality of Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, health care reform.

That ruling, which also has major implications for Obama’s re-election chances, is now expected to come on Thursday.

Lower courts last year opted to strike sections of the Arizona law they said would place a burden on legal resident aliens in the Mexico-border state, where a third of the 6.6 million people are foreign-born and more than 400,000 are illegal immigrants.

Brewer, who earlier this year was caught on camera pointing her finger in Obama’s face in what looked to be a testy exchange on an airport tarmac, asked the top court to reinstate the suspended sections.

The broad decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was approved by five votes to three. The move to uphold, for now, the status checks was unanimous.

Mexico and 17 other countries have filed arguments with the Supreme Court opposing the law. At least 36 US states have introduced legislation with elements similar to those in Arizona.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

More on Capital News