Hispanics criticize Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s illegal immigration law
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Leaders of the Latin American and U.S. Hispanic communities continued sharp criticisms Friday against a Supreme Court decision that upholds a tough state law against illegal immigration.
They say the ruling on Thursday will lead to discrimination against Hispanic people.
The Arizona law empowers local police to shut down any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants.
The Supreme Court ruling is expected to encourage other states to enact similar laws to ensure employees are Americans.
The Obama administration opposed the Arizona law, saying the state was authorizing itself to set immigration policy that the Constitution reserves to the federal government.
The Supreme Court said Arizona was not setting a new immigration policy, merely enforcing the federal laws that already exist.
“Arizona hopes that its law will result in more effective enforcement of the prohibition on employing unauthorized aliens,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the 5-3 majority.
As a result, “the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law,” he wrote.
Among the first Latin American leaders to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision was Wilbert Bendezu, president of Peru’s Parliament.
He said the Supreme Court’s decision set a “dangerous precedent” that will lead to other laws against immigrants.
Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Mississippi, Ohio and Florida all have either enacted or are considering laws against illegal immigration that closely follow the “Legal Arizona Workers Act.”
Bendezu said the Arizona law gives employers no other choice than to fire workers who lack U.S. government work permits.
He estimated that about 600,000 Peruvians live illegally in the United States.
Other criticism came from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), a civil rights organization for Hispanics.
“Today’s regrettable decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a tortured product of judicial activism responding to perceived political views of the moment,” said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF’s president.
He hinted that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to approval of Arizona’s S.B. 1070.
The state law authorizes local police to question and arrest anyone if the officers have “probable cause” evidence they are illegally in the United States. The law is awaiting an appeal to the Supreme Court before it can be enforced.
“Laws that encroach on exclusive federal immigration enforcement by mandating or permitting untrained local police officers to engage in racial profiling will find little refuge in today’s decision,” Saenz said. “Wise state and local lawmakers must continue to tread carefully in areas touching on immigration. As has been the case for well over 200 years, federal action remains the sole legitimate avenue to address immigration issues.”
Dissenters on the Supreme Court largely agreed that Arizona lawmakers overstepped their authority with the Legal Arizona Workers Act.
“Either directly or through the uncertainty that it creates, the Arizona statute will impose additional burdens upon lawful employers,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.
The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Breyer wrote that employers now are likely to “erect ever stronger safeguards against the hiring of unauthorized aliens, without counterbalancing protections against unlawful discrimination.”
The Arizona law also requires employers to check the immigration status of all job applicants using an online federal background check program called E-Verify.
The Supreme Court ruling said E-Verify was “entirely consistent” with federal law.
About 215,000 employers nationwide have enrolled voluntarily in the E-Verify program. South Carolina and Mississippi also require employers to do E-Verify background checks.
Some members of Congress have said recently they plan to introduce bills requiring E-Verify checks nationally.
View full post on All Stories
