This week, Wednesday is a big day for immigrants' rights advocates: The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Arizona v. United States, the Justice Department's challenge to S.B. 1070, Arizona's racial profiling law. The ACLU will be participating in two briefings today and tomorrow, and will be attending the argument.
Over the weekend, "NBC Nightly News" aired a segment on ranchers in rural Arizona concerned with border security. As is so often the case with media coverage of the border, this segment only included one side of the story – ranchers concerned about smugglers. Not included in this piece were the voices of many community members in the southwest—including ranchers – who are critical of the massive scale-up of border security, and the effect that it's had on their communities and ranches. For example, we have heard complaints from ranchers in the New Mexico boot heel region, who are concerned with Border Patrol agents "tearing up their land" or killing their cattle without paying them for their loss.
By Michael Tan, Staff Attorney, Immigrants' Rights Project, ACLU at 4:24pm
Today the federal government issued new guidance that should end the latest form of anti-immigrant discrimination at the state level: the decision by certain states to deny driver’s licenses to young immigrants who were brought to the country as children—or “DREAMers.”
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.
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.
How long does it take a governor to flip flop and buckle under pressure from Tea Partiers? About a day, if you’re Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley.
On Friday, he signed a bill making flawed revisions to HB 56, the nation’s most extreme anti-immigrant state law. Just a day earlier, Bentley had declined to sign the new measure, which was rammed through the Legislature on the last day of its 2012 regular session. Instead, he summoned lawmakers to reconsider the bill in a special session in order to “prevent children from being interrogated” by school officials about their immigration status and the status of their parents. He also cautioned against the “public relations problem” that would ensue from a startling new requirement that the state Department of Homeland Security post online the names of every undocumented immigrant who appears in a state court.
