Ruling on Arizona immigration to have mixed impact on laws in other states

Immigration experts noted that the high court did not give carte blanche to Arizona’s drive against illegal immigrants. While upholding the right of police to ascertain legal status, it struck down other aspects of the law that conflicted with federal policy, such as making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek work or to be in the state without proper documents.

Activists disagreed on the scope and significance of the ruling. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for Immigration Reform, said the ruling — coupled with an earlier decision upholding federal ID checks on employees — means that “states now have broad latitude to carry out a policy of attrition through enforcement” of immigration laws.

SCOTUS

Supreme Court's Arizona decision

Read the full text of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law.

More on the Supreme Court

For Obama, a tough term at high court

For Obama, a tough term at high court

Justices are expected to hand down long-awaited rulings on health care this week, but it’s already been a long year for the president before the Supreme Court.

Court strengthens Citizens United

Court strengthens <i>Citizens United</i>

THE FIX | The Supreme Court said in a 5 to 4 ruling Monday that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.

The Big Story: Immigration debate

The Big Story: Immigration debate

FULL COVERAGE | Complete coverage of the immigration debate from the policy and political standpoints.

But opponents stressed that, in addition to striking down three other sections of the Arizona law, the high court framed a narrow definition of what states can do to enforce immigration law and suggested that in some cases, even police questioning of legal status could still be open to legal challenge.

“The court has issued a sharp rebuke to Arizona and restated the limits on state power to deal with immigration matters,” said Cecilia Wang, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco. She said the ACLU will “go into court immediately” to challenge Arizona and “copycat” laws in other states on grounds of violating immigrants’ rights.

Laws that have been blocked in Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina all have provisions allowing police to question immigrants’ legal status, but all are written slightly differently and some may need to be changed to fit within the high court’s ruling.

National immigrant advocates said the situation in Alabama, where a federal court last year upheld part of a state law allowing local police to check immigrants’ legal status, makes them especially worried about what will happen if other states are allowed to follow suit. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have fled Alabama since the fall.

Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason, the state law’s sponsor, said he was “very pleased” that the high court upheld state police powers, but disappointed and confused by parts of the ruling that forbid states from making it a crime for immigrants to be in the state without proper documents.

“I think the court made the issue as clear as mud,” Beason said.

The greater Washington area has also served as a laboratory for tough immigration laws. In Prince William County, the 2007 law originally allowed police to check any individual’s immigration status. After protests, the law was modified to allow police to check the legal status only of people who have already been arrested.

County Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), who championed the county law and is now running for lieutenant governor of Virginia, said Monday that Prince William had found a “sweet spot” that would allow localities to crack down on illegal immigration without provoking problems. “I would not be surprised ultimately if Arizona goes the same way,” he said.

But local critics of the county law hold a more negative view. Tim Freilich, who heads an immigrant advocacy program for the Legal Aid Justice Center, said the county crackdown had “divided the community, it devastated the local economy.”

Staff writers Luz Lazo, N.C. Aizenman and Sandhya Somashekhar contributed to this report.

Loading...

Comments

Add your comment
 
Read what others are saying About Badges