Today, a federal court in South Carolina upheld most of its original order blocking key provisions of South Carolina’s anti-immigrant law from going into effect. The court’s ruling today makes it clear that states like South Carolina cannot independently criminalize the act of transporting or harboring certain immigrants, or the failure to carry federal immigration papers. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, however, the court modified its original decision to block the law’s “show me your papers” provision. But today’s decision clearly states that the law does not allow South Carolina officers to detain individuals solely to verify their immigration status.
For 19-year-old Hugo Carrillo Escobedo, SB1070 is about more than just “showing your papers.” After “squealing” his tires, Hugo wound up in immigration detention for eight hours. Hugo’s story is particularly compelling because he was initially just given a citation for the traffic violation and immediately released. But the police officer later showed up at his house, saying: “Do you know about SB1070? If I don’t report you, I could lose my job.”
Alabama’s outrageous attempt to deny some immigrant children their right to education is among the provisions that was rejected Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The Atlanta-based court also blocked other harmful parts of Alabama and Georgia’s anti-immigrant laws, including those that attempted to criminalize everyday actions with undocumented immigrants.
But the court left room for narrow implementation of certain ‘show me your papers’ provisions, which the ACLU and a civil rights coalition will continue to fight against.
In the summer of 2007, the Prince William County, Virginia Board of Supervisors passed a first-of-its-kind anti-immigrant resolution with a “show me your papers” clause. It required police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they had probable cause to believe was an undocumented immigrant. A pair of documentarians, Annabel Park and Eric Byler recorded—in real time—the heated debate that transpired surrounding the passage of the resolution, documenting the division it created in the community of Prince William County.
By Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 2:40pm
Sigh. As if we don’t have enough divisiveness in this country, a familiar subset of Congressional Republicans are trotting out yet another discriminatory bill papered over with hollow rhetoric about “unity,” “commonality” and shared national vision, which will be the subject of a hearing in the House Constitution Subcommittee today. (Here’s the ACLU’s statement, which focuses mainly on the civil rights and immigration issues in the bill; I’m just covering the First Amendment in this post.)
By Chris Calabrese, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 12:24pm
Leading yesterday’s New York Times op-ed page is a column by Bill Keller, Show Me Your Papers. It supports the faulty claim that we can solve our nation’s immigration woes if we just create a national ID system, and it specifically lauds a 2010 proposal by Sens. Schumer and Graham to create a biometric social security card that would function as a national ID for every American.
The highest court in the land has had its say. Politicians and media pundits have had their news cycle. And in Arizona, we’re back to where this all begins and ends—where the resolve of people across the state will again be tested in the coming weeks and months as the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070 is implemented.
In Arizona, part of that resolve requires simply sorting out the facts. In their zeal to claim victory, Gov. Jan Brewer and others in Arizona have incorrectly announced that SB 1070 would take effect immediately. Inaccurate statements such as these are irresponsible and muddy the already dark waters. Yesterday, civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of Arizona, sent a letter to the attorneys representing Gov. Brewer and other defendants in the Friendly House v Whitingcase, explaining that the court order forbidding implementation of SB 1070's racial profiling provision, Section 2(B), remains in place unless and until it is modified by a further order from a federal court. Until that time, no law enforcement agency in Arizona should implement Section 2(B).
By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 6:05pm
The Supreme Court handed down a mixed decision Monday for Arizona and the handful of states that have copied its anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. Striking down three of the four provisions at issue in Arizona v. United States, the Justices affirmed the federal government’s exclusive role in enforcing immigration law. On the one hand, the Court delivered a significant rebuke to legislators who tried to make being an undocumented immigrant a crime. But on the other hand, the Court let stand the discriminatory “show me your papers” provision, or Section 2(B). And while it’s true that the Court sent a warning that Section 2(B) could still be ruled unconstitutional based on pending challenges (by the ACLU and other civil rights groups) focused more directly on racial profiling and prolonged detention, it nevertheless has thrown Arizona and other states into chaos by reversing the lower courts’ decision to block the “show me your papers” law. Arizona officials immediately announced that they would begin enforcing Section 2(B), even though the Supreme Court’s ruling does not immediately lift the order blocking. The Court’s decision now sends the case back to the lower district court in Arizona for further proceedings.
On Monday, the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States struck down three provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 racial profiling law, but reinstated, for now, the most controversial provision, which requires Arizona police officers to demand the immigration papers of anyone they stop, arrest, or detain. S.B. 1070 makes racial profiling Arizona state policy. When a police officer asks for papers, it’s based on bias because there is no way to tell by looking at or listening to someone whether the person is lawfully in the United States.
