On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled against key parts of an Arizona law intended to deter illegal immigration in the state. As you can imagine, this ruling has wide-ranging effects for the ability of all states to fight against the tidal wave of illegal immigration locally.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means more illegal immigration tomorrow. For those trying to decide whether or not to enter our country illegally, the risks and costs have just gone down, and the potential benefits have just increased. It would be more intellectually coherent for Congress to repeal our current immigration laws and just welcome all who would like to come without numerical limitation. The current policy of maintaining numerical limits on the books, but not enforcing those limits, and now prohibiting most state enforcement of those limits, simply makes no sense.
This policy is a slap in the face for the millions of qualified immigrants now waiting outside the U.S. for their chance to immigrate legally. They look like fools, and their children will age out and not be allowed to immigrate with them if they ever get visas.
The court gave broad support to the Obama administration’s policy of prosecutorial discretion, or limited enforcement of U.S. immigration law. The court cited with approval the administration’s 2011 memo announcing a policy of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, basically limited to criminals and national security threats. The court noted, “a primary feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” Prosecutorial discretion is what underlies the recent administration decision to give work authorization for illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before age 16.
Most of Arizona’s efforts to deal with illegal immigration were struck down. Studies estimate that the unauthorized portion of Arizona’s population currently sits somewhere between 6 percent and 9 percent. One study cited by the court found that the 8.9 percent unauthorized portion of Arizona’s population was responsible for 21.8 percent of Arizona’s felony crimes. The message to other states: No matter how bad it gets for you, you won’t be allowed to do what Arizona tried.
The court preserved a narrow window for state action to restrict illegal immigration. As determined last year in Whiting v. Chamber of Commerce, states can use licensing power to revoke the business licenses of employers who hire illegal immigrants without checking work authorization using the automated E-Verify procedure. This licensing power is also what the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, has tried to use in its anti-illegal immigration ordinances.
Secondly, the court permitted to stand the portion of the Arizona statute requiring a determination of immigration status any time a police officer makes a legal stop and has a reasonable suspicion that the stopped individual may be illegal. That provision also specified that anyone actually arrested should have an immigration status determination before release. The high court approved that provision only on condition that it not result in practice in prolonged detention. The racial profiling argument is a loser; if the government had made an attempt to argue this, it could have been used to strike federal immigration law provisions as well.
This procedure for a mandatory immigration status check upon reasonable suspicion after a legal stop is already standard operating procedure in many jurisdictions throughout the United States. Arizona put it in SB1070 because certain Arizona “sanctuary city” jurisdictions were instructing their police not to do status checks despite reasonable suspicion.
Chief Justice Roberts’ position in support of the majority opinion was surprising and curious. Justice Kennedy maintained his usual position as the key swing vote assigned to write the majority opinion, but if the Chief Justice had decided to vote along with his fellow Republican appointees, it would not have made a much of a difference. A 4-4 split, because Justice Kagan recused herself, would have left the lower court opinion in effect, striking all four of the challenged portions of SB1070.
Chief justices feel responsible for the image of the court as a whole, and hate to have the court viewed as ineffective and its opinions without meaning. I suspect the Chief Justice offered to vote with the majority, creating a decisive 5-3 majority vote, provided the majority agreed to sustain at least one of the contested provisions of SB1070 requiring an immigration status check after a legal stop if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is without legal status. And, of course, that is what the majority proceeded to do.
• Copyright 2012 Jan Ting, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Jan Ting is a Professor of Law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and a former Assistant Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum and Parole, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Jan can be reached at janting@temple.edu.
Jesus Christo de Nogales posted at 3:09 pm on Wed, Jun 27, 2012.
Obama is a true racist. Why does the US President hate the advancement of the standard of living for Mexico’s poor? Barrack Hussein Obama; how dare you deprive Mexico its young educated and motivated people? These illegal aliens now in the US are the only hope for Mexico and you want to keep them here in the US. They could start businesses, create jobs, and improve the standard of living for the poor people of Mexico. Yet you want to be selfish and deprive Mexico of these talented youth who could make life better for all the people of Mexico. SHAME ON YOU! Have you no compassion for the poor now living in Mexico? Gustavo Arellano, Steve Gallardo, Nicky Diaz Santillan, and La Raza need to insist that all these young educated and talented Mexicans be sent back to Mexico to help improve the standard of living for the poor Mexicans.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:19 pm on Wed, Jun 27, 2012.
If being poor was legal basis for violating our immigration laws -- then the Haitians should be shoo-ins.
Haitians are much poorer than any country south of our border -- but we send Haitians back immediately when we catch them -- but not hispanics.
Hmmm, isn't that a version of profiling?
samkat posted at 6:57 pm on Wed, Jun 27, 2012.
Right on AW. Obama only acted because he thought he might increase his Hispanic voting base. However, I seriously doubt that he factored in the loss of votes from non Hispanics who far outnumber the Hispanic population. For every unemployed American and his/her family who votes, I suspect his actions will create negative numbers.
chatmandu002 posted at 9:49 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.
The rush for the border has started and "proper papers" will soon be for sale on every street corner. All thanks to our imperial president.
VofReason posted at 1:12 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.
I wish some smart commentator or someone educated back east would comment here and tell us all what Neocons we really are. Then they would give that Law Professor a piece of his mind and tell us all why this is the best thing that could have ever happened. I can't wait
mnjcpa posted at 8:52 am on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Let's just put a signpost in southern Arizona .....step this way to sign up for the Democratic party.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:37 am on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Nope, I resigned from the Democratic Party because they support invading aliens.
As a liberal, I happily pay taxes to help those less fortunate.
BUT THE TAXES ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP AMERICANS and those here legally --- not be given to people who invade us while flying a Mexican flag and demand services and " rights ".
I voted for Ron Paul last election because he was the ONLY one who is willing to actually deport the invaders.
mnjcpa posted at 1:34 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Arizona Willie - we are in 100% agreement. I want Ron Paul to head up the Dept. of Treasury.
Mister Lightoller posted at 4:14 am on Mon, Sep 17, 2012.
Testing. Azcentral.com expatriate here...
Jesus Christo de Nogales posted at 9:44 am on Fri, Oct 12, 2012.
Tell Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto that his country must stop exporting drugs and illegal Mexican occupiers of the United States and re claim its illegal Mexican occupiers now in the US. This is such an embarrassing situation for Mexico. La Raza, The Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights, National Immigrant Solidarity Network/AFGJ and Casa Aztlánwill help Nieto in stopping this illegal occupation of the United States and create a working birth control program in Mexico. They can’t afford to have so many children and the situation will only get worse. Are you with us?
Cas Lee posted at 7:44 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 22nd debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal gov’t economic regulation and role; healthcare; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
3rd Romney-Obama debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Syria; Egypt; U.S. world role; military spending; Israel; Iran; Afghanistan; China; U.S. national security threats.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
Romney and Ryan won all 4 debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate and Romney slightly took the win both in the 2nd and 3rd debates.
In the 3rd debate (unlike in prior debates), Obama reflected his weakness and disrespect by interrupting Romney a lot and using too many “one-line quips” to try to denigrate Romney.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude behavior during the debate (often interrupted Ryan, laughed when Ryan talked, pointed his finger). Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth disrespected Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, credibility, and leadership.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan, with their no-nonsense and methodic approach to solving America’s problems, are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Best regards,
Cas Lee