Given the intense drilling from Supreme Court justices hearing oral arguments in the Arizona immigration law challenge, writing is on the wall says the law may likely be upheld.
Eight justices – Kagan recused herself because she worked on the case while Solicitor General before being sworn in – didn’t appear to think the Arizona law unlawfully encroaches on the federal government’s authority to enforce U.S. immigration policy.
Justice Scalia was obvious about it: “what’s wrong about the states enforcing Federal law?” Even Obama appointee and the only Hispanic on the bench Justice Sonya Sotamayor was skeptical at one point suggesting she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts’ suggestion that the Arizona law may not precisely be inconsistent with federal immigration laws.
In its brief to justify the law, Arizona complained that criminal aliens make up over 17% of the prison population. The county serving Phoenix includes 21.8% felony defendants in the country unlawfully. It stated that Arizona spends several hundred million dollars providing education and healthcare to aliens unlawfully in the state.
“Private ranchers living near the border constantly face the epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems (including large deposits of trash and human waste,and cut water lines and fences) associated with a steady flow of illegal crossings on their land,” the state argued.
If the court upholds the law, it may be acting in concert with the American public. A recent Fox News poll showed 65 percent supporting the law. Even among Hispanic Americans, a key demographic presumed to be against the law, there is a split. Twelve percent of second-generation Latino voters in the state say they support S.B. 1070, according to a recent Latino Decisions poll. That jumps to nearly 30 percent in the fourth generation.
Those who support the law may think that increased stops and delays on legal and American citizens of Hispanic origin is a price to pay. Tell that to those who may be subject to a substantial increase of stops that disrupting travel and daily life.
But the case will hardly go away. Alas, it has only just begun. If upheld, other border states may follow suit and legislate their own version. However, as soon as the law is applied, it becomes ripe for a subsequent lawsuit that stipulates it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment if only applied to one race of people. The challenges to the law’s application will likely be based on the Historic Civil Rights cases and more recent cases about racial profiling in police stops.
Read this entire article by Attorney Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt on Politic 365