(MintPress) – Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court struck down major provisions from the controversial Arizona immigration law S.B. 1070. The ruling, many say, declares certain police practices as racist, discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional. This includes warrantless arrests and requirements that immigrants carry proper documentation at all times. However, one key provision was upheld, allowing officers to continue to check the immigration status of those arrested or detained if they believe a suspect is an illegal immigrant.
The ruling has set a meaningful, yet contested precedent that is likely to set off challenges to other state laws around the country. In Alabama and Georgia for example, state laws on illegal immigration were modeled in large part from Arizona S.B. 1070. With a Supreme Court challenge to key provisions of the Arizona law, a fight over state’s rights and border patrolling may be brewing amidst the runup to the presidential election in November.
Supreme Court infringing upon states rights?
Congressman Raul Grijalva, (D-Ariz.) welcomed the news of the Supreme Court decision, saying Monday, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling largely struck down a law we have always recognized as an extremist attempt to undermine our core values and our Constitution. The court’s decision reaffirmed that S.B. 1070 and its many imitators are not an acceptable substitute for a federal immigration standard.”
Grijalva, like many within the Mexican-American community, has long advocated for a moderate national immigration policy, one that does not give police departments the authority to practice racial profiling and other discriminatory policies.
Among the provisions struck down were state laws which make it illegal for an immigrant not to be carrying proper documents at all times. The rare use of warrantless arrests were also condemned while the justices decided that it was unconstitutional to bar an undocumented immigrant from working in Arizona.
However, one key provision was upheld by the Supreme Court. Section 2B, the “show me your papers” portion, which Grijalva calls “a provision that violates basic rights and denies equal justice,” was cautiously upheld.
The court anticipated further legal challenges to the ruling, stating, “There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume 2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.”
This provision would allow police officers to check the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if the officer has reason to believe that the person in question is in the country illegally.
Legal rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have vowed to carry on the fight against a provision that they say will be used as a discriminatory tool against Latinos and people of color. The group is currently planning legal challenges to the ruling, attempting to prevent the provision from ever taking effect.
The now infamous Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, said the decision won’t have any real effect on the methods used by police officers. Arpaio, who has come under significant criticism for supporting deportations and conservative immigration policies, defended his department in an interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, saying, “We are well trained, we do that without racial profiling, regardless of what the critics and some politicians in the U.S. Justice Department accuse me of.”
The decision to hear the case has sparked national interest given the decreased numbers of illegal immigrants from Mexico entering the United States. According to a Pew Hispanic Research Survey, there were approximately 6.1 million illegal Mexican immigrants living in the United States in 2011, a sharp decline from 2007 when more than 7 million were estimated to be living in the U.S.
While it is difficult to understand the exact reasons for the apparent exodus of so many unauthorized residents, conservatives posit that the drop is due in large part to state immigration laws, like S.B. 1070, which allow law enforcement to ask for an individual to provide proof of U.S. citizenship.
Others, contend that the poor state of the economy may have contributed to the decline as well. The immigration debate has received significant attention of late, with President Obama trying to appease key Latino voting blocs with his immigration reform.
Amnesty for young immigrants
Earlier this month, President Obama announced he would adopt a key provision of the previously defeated Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. While the bill has been proposed in various forms since 2007, the central tenant Obama has unilaterally adopted would provide young undocumented immigrants with an opportunity to stay in the U.S. for work, education or to join the military.
Many of these young immigrants, as supporters of the legislation point out, were brought to this country at a very young age and have no ties to their countries of origin. They did not arrive in the U.S. on their own accord, having been brought here by their parents and very often have developed deep connections to the United States despite not having proper documentation.
President Obama’s decision to halt the deportation of young undocumented immigrants has been criticised by conservatives calling the move a temporary, insufficient attempt at solving the broader immigration problem. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) was among those critical of the move labeled by some as “amnesty,” saying, “We can’t do anything that encourages illegal immigration in the future. People are frustrated our immigration laws are not being enforced.”
Senator Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has called for the need to pass a form of the DREAM Act as a means to tackling America’s prolonged immigration problem. While the debate about Obama’s decision continues to percolate, Obama’s decision may have secured his popularity in key Hispanic-American communities, an important voting bloc both presidential candidates have targeted in the run up to the November general election.
Vying for the Hispanic-American vote
Indeed, President Obama enjoys a strong favorability rating in Hispanic-American communities. Sixty-one percent of Latino voters favor Barack Obama over the GOP challenger Mitt Romney, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll conducted last month.
Approximately 21 million voters are Latino, a full 10 percent of registered voters according to a CNN report. High concentrations of Latino voters in key swing states Florida, Colorado and Arizona have caused the candidates to spend time catering to this key voting demographic. However, like most Americans, Latino voters are primarily concerned with the state of the economy and job creation rather than immigration.
The decision to stop deportations of young illegals, many contend, is a calculated move by the Obama camp to gain favorability in a key voting demographic. Hispanic Americans, like any ethnic or racial group historically have not voted as a unified bloc. Many within the constituency, particularly Cuban-Americans, have had a history of more conservative voting.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has taken an ambiguous stance on the ruling, and on national immigration policies in general. Romney has previously advocated for tighter border controls, saying that he is a proponent of “legal immigration.” He has yet to elaborate further on the issue.
However, immigration reform could become a uniting issue for many Latino voters, many of whom are directly affected by the Obama decision and the recent Supreme Court ruling.