In Arizona, cheers and disillusionment follow immigration ruling

By Paloma Esquivel and John M. Glionna

June 25, 2012 12 AM PT

This post has been corrected. See below for details.

PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called it a victory for all Americans. But undocumented worker Jorge Martinez said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to uphold part of the state’s immigration law was a bitter defeat that would cause fear among immigrants and Latinos.

“I feel disillusioned,” said the immigrant activist in Phoenix. “I didn’t think this would happen.”

For many, the court’s decision today was a mixed bag that would no doubt see another day in court. The high court struck down most of Arizona’s strict law targeting illegal immigrants, but said Arizona can require police officers to inquire about immigration status of people detained for other, legitimate reasons.

The justices also said the federal government has the ultimate authority to decide who will be held on immigration charges and deported. Police departments must check with federal immigration agents before deciding to hold the suspects.

[For the record, June 25, 1:34 p.m.: An earlier version of this post said the Supreme Court upheld the law that says Arizona police officers can stop, question and briefly detain immigrants if they have reason to believe they are in the country illegally. It also said officers can stop people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The court upheld the portion of the Arizona law, SB1070, that requires officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine a person’s immigration status if he or she has been stopped for a legitimate reason.]

The justices also blocked parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 that would have made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not carry documents or to seek work. The court’s decision appears to give states such as Arizona a quite-limited role in enforcing laws against illegal immigrants. Police departments can notify federal agents if they have a suspect in custody, but they cannot keep the suspect in a county jail on simply on state immigration charges.

Reaction to the ruling varied widely. Proponents of anti-immigration laws called the decision a first step to an America with more secure borders. Many immigrants, either with legal documents or without, fear the law will break up families.

Arizona Democratic Party Executive Director Luis Heredia said he was disappointed by the decision. “The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled section 2B of SB 1070 to be constitutional. That does not make it just or moral. Other parts were ruled unconstitutional as further evidence why this law is flawed…. This law does nothing to protect or strengthen Arizona.”

Immigrant activists also blasted parts of the decision that gave police more powers in stopping undocumented workers.

“Women immigrants are making enormous social and economic contributions in communities across the United States,” said Jessica González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. “Laws like SB 1070 completely ignore this reality — and reflect a broken system that leaves women in the shadows.”

Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, echoed those sentiments. “SB 1070, even with some provisions removed, threatens to tear families apart and create a dangerous level of mistrust between law enforcement and women immigrants who fear detention,” she said.

“By upholding one of the most harmful provisions of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent.”

But conservatives called the decision a warning to the federal government to shore up the nation’s borders from illegal immigration.

“It’s time for the federal government to step up to its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws fairly, and to partner with states rather than sue them to accomplish this important objective,” said Rick Santorum, a former GOP presidential candidate.

Last year, several states and municipal governments passed new laws to crack down on illegal immigration, following Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April 2010. While legislatures in Utah, Indiana and Georgia passed bills that featured many of the same sanctions against illegal immigrants as Arizona, the most restrictive law came from Alabama, which Gov. Robert Bentley called “the strongest immigration law in the country.”

Alabama’s law prompted three legal challenges, including a lawsuit by the Obama administration, which contended Alabama had usurped powers that rightfully belong to the federal government.

Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, on Monday said she saw hope in the Supreme Court’s decision.

“From someone here in Alabama, which has seen the most extreme anti-immigration law in the country go into effect, this is seen as a decent decision, as good as we might have hoped for,” she said.

She said the language in the decision means that the Supreme Court “held out real possibility that the Arizona law will be declared unconstitutional when the justices see how it comes out in practice.”

She also called it a warning shot for states like Alabama.

“It’s a warning for all these states that might enact anti-immigration provisions that maybe this isn’t such a good idea. It’s a doctrine of federal preemption.”

Meanwhile, conservative groups such as the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC applauded the high court ruling, and vowed to “pass improved versions of Arizona’s law in more states as soon as possible, to protect American workers, students, taxpayers, and voters from illegal immigration.”

Russell Pearce, the former Arizona state senator who sponsored SB 1070, said he was ecstatic about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold what he called “the critical parts” of the law. Those parts require police officers when making lawful stops or arrests to check the immigration status of people they suspect may be in the country illegally.

“It’s been a long trek,” Pearce said in a telephone interview from San Diego, where he was traveling. “Now let’s enforce our laws.”

The purpose of SB 1070, he said, was to “take the handcuffs off of law enforcement, and that’s what we’ve done.”

Pearce said he was looking forward to implementation of the law by law enforcement agencies across the state.

“They must now ask, and follow through,” he said.

ALSO:

Colorado wildfires force thousands to evacuate

Utah shooters spark 20 wildfires -- and a gun rights controversy

Jerry Sandusky letter to abuse victim: ‘There has been love in my heart’

[email protected]