Sponsored by

Guest opinion: SB 1070

Supreme Court failed to fully protect against racial profiling

'Papers please' provision will lead to abuses

Though making an effort to limit the opportunities for racial profiling, the Supreme Court still upheld one of S.B. 1070's central and most offensive provisions, the requirement that law enforcement officers demand proof of legal status from anyone they suspect is undocumented. This "papers please" provision will directly lead to racial and ethnic profiling based on the way people look or the way they speak, regardless of whether they have been American citizens all of their lives.

Still, today's ruling was narrow in that the Court only concluded that federal law did not pre-empt states from enacting these "papers please" laws. Lawsuits challenging the provision on racial profiling grounds will continue to be litigated and we are confident that the measure will ultimately be struck down. Unfortunately, the Court's ruling today means that while we await that future decision, the fundamental rights of Americans living in those states will be degraded.

This decision is still a set-back to civil rights in America, but it is not a defeat. The civil rights and immigrant rights communities will continue to fight against laws like S.B. 1070 in the courts, in state legislatures, and in Congress. These measures don't exist in a vacuum. As recent polling shows, Latinos voters are paying close attention to the court's ruling and a majority believe the decision will contribute to a hostile environment for Latinos. Moreover laws like these hurt our community safety, bankrupt economies, and undermine our national unity so it is not surprising that the rush to follow Arizona down this treacherous road has stalled. States that were considering copycat measures in 2012 all took a pass after seeing how costly and socially divisive these laws are.

Today's ruling increases the urgency of sensible and workable federal immigration reform. But that is only possible with bipartisan support. So we call on the Republican Party to repudiate the politics of division and come to the negotiating table. And in the interim, we call on the Obama administration to continue fighting against laws like S.B. 1070, which have no place in America.

Specifically, we ask the administration to double down on its strong efforts to stand up for the civil rights of all residents; we ask the administration to send civil rights monitors into the states that implement these "papers please" laws; and we ask the administration to halt the Secure Communities program in those states.

The Supreme Court's decision today will be a watershed moment in the history of American immigration policy, but we believe it will be the beginning of a movement toward the basic American principle of greater inclusivity, rather than the repudiation of it.

TucsonSentinel.com's original reporting and curation of border and immigration news is generously supported in part by a grant from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation.

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

- 30 -
have your say   

Latest comments on this storyRead all 4 »

4
517 comments
Jun 26, 2012, 10:24 am
-0 +1

@Bret Linden

I shall investigate and correct whatever’s gone wrong with the comments on that for you.

3
1758 comments
Jun 26, 2012, 10:18 am
-0 +0

@Dylan Smith

Well, fair ‘nuff. I take it from your last sentence is that you’re posting much more opposition because the supporters haven’t been as vocal.

Since you’re in a question-answering mood this morning, perhaps you can enlighten as to why comments are closed on stories relating to the money-pit street car…

2
517 comments
Jun 26, 2012, 8:47 am
-0 +0

@Bret Linden

Thanks for pointing out this commentary was misfiled. It’s in the Op section now.

We’ve posted a number of opinion pieces from people hailing the decision - from Brewer, McCain & Kyl, etc.

The majority of right-wing think tanks that churn out commentary are business-oriented, and have been mum about SB 1070, if not openly opposed to it.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment