Note also that racial profiling is not at issue here. Now, the provisions that have been enjoined — and which will therefore be at the heart of the case before the Supreme Court — are generally considered to be the most controversial ones: requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have lawfully detained whom they have reasonable suspicion to believe may be in the country illegally Section 2 B ; making it a state crime to violate federal alien registration laws Section 3 ; making it a state crime for illegal aliens to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or work as an independent contractor Section 5 C 1 ; and permitting warrantless arrests where the police have probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime that makes him subject to deportation Section 6.
What I will say about the four disputed provisions is the following:. As Judge Bea points out, it cannot be the case that the legality of a state law turns on a given set of enforcement policies or practices, as opposed to the text of the allegedly preemptive federal law itself. Second , Section 3 does not to me seem to add any additional registration requirements that would violate the applicable conflict preemption standards see Hines v.
Davidowitz , but rather mirrors federal law. Whiting decision might at first glance belie this view, but the regulations at issue there fit neatly within an explicit exemption in federal law. With preemption analysis perhaps more than anything else on the Supreme Court docket, text matters.
For example, Rhode Island law enforcement officers have long been checking immigration status during traffic stops as a matter of policy. Under this law any person of color, or anyone with a foreign accent, can be required to prove their status and be jailed—regardless of whether they are a citizen or an immigrant—until they can do so.
By targeting certain groups of people living within the state, the Arizona law amounts to an ethnically divisive and deeply hostile social policy. It raises the specter of states treating people differently based solely on their appearance rather than on their actions.
Every person in Arizona and states that pass S. In practice it will be people of color that bear the brunt of these policies. Instead of focusing on community safety, law enforcement professionals in Arizona and other states with anti-immigrant laws will be forced to focus more on detaining unauthorized immigrants.
SB in What are our rights? Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Print. Leave this field blank. Related Issues Immigrants' Rights. A separate case filed by a civil rights coalition, Friendly House v. Whiting , will continue. That case includes additional legal claims that were not addressed by the Supreme Court, including arguments that the law will result in unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that it discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In , five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — enacted similar state immigration enforcement laws. No state passed a copycat law in , and a growing number of states have realized these laws lead to civil rights abuses for immigrants and citizens, harm businesses, and conflict with fundamental American values of fairness and equality.
0コメント