A Supreme Court decision overturning most provisions of Arizona's
controversial immigration law leaves the door open for statutes that require
police to check the legal status of people they stop.
The Supreme Court struck down three major parts of the Arizona law that
will deter attempts to duplicate those measures in other states like Texas.
But the court left in place a key part of the Arizona law -- the "show me your
papers" provision -- that could energize efforts to outlaw so-called sanctuary
cities, a legislative priority for Texas Gov. Rick Perry that failed to pass
last year.
The Supreme Court's ruling affirms the state's right to ban sanctuary
cities in Texas, Perry wrote on his Twitter account late Monday afternoon,
saying he will "again fight to pass this important bill next session." But
immigrant advocates and Rio Grande Valley state legislators opposed to the
measure say they are prepared for narrowly crafted laws that target the
provision the Supreme Court upheld.
State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, said the Supreme Court's
ruling will fuel efforts to pass sanctuary cities when the Legislature
convenes in January. But Hinojosa maintained his stance that sanctuary cities
will lead to racial profiling and goes too far by allowing police to
investigate immigration status for people stopped on routine traffic
violations rather than those arrested for crimes.
"We already have a statute in place for law enforcement to check the
status of a person after they are arrested," said Hinojosa, who gutted the
sanctuary cities bill using a legislative maneuver in the waning days of
2011's regular legislative session. "They shouldn't be able to stop a person
on a pretext of speeding or a broken headlight and then ask them to provide
proof of legal residency."
The court's ruling brought mixed responses from civil rights and
immigrant advocacy groups in South Texas.
The Supreme Court struck down three major provisions that require all
immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; make it a state
criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and
allow police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. On the
other hand, the court left in the "show me your papers" provision that is
similar to Texas' sanctuary cities proposal.
Although legislators introduced a flurry of anti-illegal immigration
bills in the 2011 legislative session, none had more momentum than sanctuary
cities, the proposal that prohibits local governments from stopping their law
enforcement officers from enforcing federal immigration laws. While supporters
said the bill gives law enforcement the authority they need to enforce all of
the nation's laws, its critics said it leads to racial profiling.
"The truth is 'show me your papers' laws harm citizens and noncitizens
alike," said Krystal Gomez, the advocacy and policy council for the ACLU of
Texas in Brownsville. "It's impossible to enforce these laws without racial
profiling as people will be targeted and detained based on how they look or
sound."
In the Supreme Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy -- the
court's swing vote -- distinguished the "show me your papers" provision from
the Arizona law's other parts by saying consultation between local and federal
authorities is already part of the immigration system.
Kennedy pointed to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's support
center that assisted local and state police in checking a person's legal
status more than 1 million times in 2009. That support center is part of ICE's
Secure Communities program that checks the immigration status of people booked
into jail.
Hidalgo County was one of the first jurisdictions to implement the
screening program that electronically compares the fingerprints of every new
inmate against federal criminal databases and immigration records maintained
by the Department of Homeland Security. Secure Communities' supporters say it
draws a distinction between criminal illegal immigrants and those who are
simply here to live or work.
But a recurrent response to the Supreme Court's ruling was to criticize
the federal government's inaction on immigration issues.
Perry said Arizona was responding to "the absence of federal action on
immigration enforcement (that) directly spoils the integrity of our nation's
laws." State Rep. Sergio Munoz, D-Mercedes, said the federal government's
inaction has left open a push for "extremely biased types of legislation" that
lead to racial profiling.
And John Michael Torres, a spokesman for immigrant advocacy group La
Union del Pueblo Entero, said people who support Arizona-style laws are
"frustrated with the inability of federal legislators to pass immigration
reform."
"What we know is that the real solution is comprehensive immigration
reform at the federal level," Torres said. "These types of piecemeal
legislative solutions are only making the situation worse, not correcting it."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
