IMMIGRANTS STILL AT RISK

Today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on four provisions of Arizona's immigration law [S.B. 1070] gives some measure of relief for immigtrants in our country, but still leaves them at risk because one section of 1070 remains in place--at least for now.

The three sections of 1070 struck down by the Supreme Court are the folllowing:

     Section 3:  "makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor"

     Section 5(C):  "makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State [Arizona]"

     Section 6:  "authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person 'the officer has probably cause to believe...has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States"
 
Upheld by the Court is section 2(B):  "requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government"

Why should immigrants across the nation still be concerned?  Because the very real threat of racial profiling of immigrants remains.  The decision leaves enormous discretion in the hands of the law enforcement officers who are making a stop of a person.  How is an officer to make a clear and unbiased determination in the Arizona law:  "Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 requires state officers to make a 'reasonable attempt...to determine the immigration status' of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if 'reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."

How is "reasonable suspicion" to be interpreted?  Color of skin?  Primary language?  Certain physical features?  How long can a person be detained while state officers seek immigration status reports from the Federal Government?
    
This is at the heart of the challenge to S.B. 1070 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in our Amicus Curiae Brief.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized these inherent dangers, and has agreed to allow Section 2(B) to go forward while implementation takes place:  "This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutinal challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."

I am hopeful that the Church and various immigration rights organizations will monitor the implementation of this law across Arizona--as well as in other States where the same provision is enacted.  Specific examples of the suspicion of racial profiling need to be documented so that any needed preemption and constitutional challenges can take place.

If I were a person of dark skin who spoke another language as my primary language, I would still be fearful of being stopped and detained because of what some might term "reasonable suspicion."

This U.S. Supreme Court decision continues to underline our need for comprehensive immigration reform so that these piecemeal approaches can be avoided, and at long last, all immigrants in our country will be clear about their status and about their options to obtain legal status.

IMMIGRATION & U.S. SUPREME COURT

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Arizona v. United  States.  It was my privilege to be present for the entire time of the oral arguments.

The Federal government was suing the State of Arizona because the Federal government reads the U.S. Constitution as giving full authority and competence on immigration issues to the Federal government, not the individual States.

U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.,
April 25, 2012

The Justices did not seem to be persuaded that one part of the Arizona law violated Federal law:  the inquiry about immigration status after a person has been stopped for another violation of the law, and when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person might not have legal residency.  It would seem that this section could survive. 

However, questions by the Justices were presuming a quick check with the Federal data bases would be carried out, and that persons would not be held longer than for the original reason for the stop.

The Justices had far more serious questions about other sections of the Arizona law, especially those sections which make it a crime for an undocumented person to seek employment, to fail to register, or to take employment.  One will just have to wait until the Court decision to learn its scope and application for Arizona and for other States.

We must keep in mind that there are other challenges to Arizona's S.B. 1070 in the Federal courts--not on the grounds of the Federal government preempting State involvement in immigration issues, but rather, the great danger of ethnic and racial profiling because of the "reasonable suspicion" of not having legal residential status language.  Since the vast majority of people who will be questioned about their immigration status are dark-skinned or Hispanic, one can just imagine who will be checked.

Chief Justice John Roberts was well aware of this fact and that those issues may eventually come to the Court.  When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli began his oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts intervened at once: 

"Before you get into what the case is about, I'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about.  No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?  I saw none of that in your brief."

Verrelli responded:  "That's correct."

This issue, however, is surely a major problem with the Arizona law.  Who else will law enforcement officers inquire about their legal residency status if not people of color, those who don't speak English well, and Hispanics?

But the Justices cannot be oblivious to the implications and practical effects of the Arizona law.  In my opinion, they simply must analyze the implications on individuals and their families when they render their final decision.

The Catholic Church will continue to stand with all of our immigrant brothers and sisters, regardless of legal residency, and will continue our efforts to extend earned paths to legal residency for all categories of these people.