The
American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a
class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona challenging Arizona's new law requiring police to demand
"papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to
be in the U.S. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial
profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with
federal law.
The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National
Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing
Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member
of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.
"Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your
papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment,
investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as
foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project. "This law violates the Constitution and interferes with
federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking
effect."
The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal
power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of
color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and
prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and
infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.
"This discriminatory law pushes Arizona into a spiral of fear, increased
crime and costly litigation," said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF Senior
National Counsel. "We expect that this misguided law will be enjoined
before it takes effect."
One of the individuals the coalition is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is
a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee
asserts that he will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that,
although the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped
twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his
"papers."
Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa, is a resident of the state of New
Mexico who is currently attending Arizona State University. The state of New
Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to
obtain a driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not
want to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries
about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that would
prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot supply proof
upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest and detain him.
Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of
Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law
enforcement's primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting
public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between
local police and immigrant communities.
"This ill-conceived law sends a clear message to communities of color that
the authorities are not to be trusted, making them less likely to come forward
as victims of or witnesses to crime," said Linton Joaquin, General Counsel
of NILC. "Arizona's authorities should not allow public safety to take a
back seat to racial profiling."
"African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial
profiling," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the NAACP. "The government should be preventing police from
investigating and detaining people based on color and accent, not mandating it.
Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for
anyone."
"This extreme law puts Arizona completely out of step with American values
of fairness and equality," said Julie Su, Litigation Director of the
APALC. "In a state where U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interned
during World War II, it is deeply troubling that a law that would mandate
lower-class treatment of people of color, immigrants and others seen to be
outsiders would pass in 2010."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of labor, domestic violence, day laborer, human
services and social justice organizations, including Friendly House, Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Local 5, United Food and Commercial
Workers International (UFCW), Arizona South Asians for Safe Families (ASAFSF),
Southside Presbyterian Church, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Asian
Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Tonatierra Community
Development Institute, Muslim American Society, Japanese American Citizens
League, Valle del Sol, Inc., Coalicíon De Derechos Humanos, and individual
named plaintiffs who will be subject to harassment or arrest under the law and
a class of similarly situated persons.
"Day laborers have repeatedly defended their First Amendment rights in
federal courts and successfully established their undeniable right to seek work
in public areas," said Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of NDLON.
"Arizona's effort to criminalize day laborers and migrants is an affront
to the Constitution and threatens to disrupt national unity, and we are
confident that federal courts will intervene to ensure the protection of our
bedrock civil rights."
Even prior to the passage of the statute, local enforcement of federal
immigration law has already caused rampant racial profiling of Latinos in
Arizona, most notably in Maricopa County. The ACLU, MALDEF and other members of
the coalition have several pending lawsuits against government officials in
Arizona because of civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens and immigrants.
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et
al., include:
ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project:
Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P.
Raghupathi;
MALDEF: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Nina
Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limón and Nicholás Espiritu;
NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S.
Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
ACLU
Foundation of Arizona: Dan
Pochoda and Annie Lai;
APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina
Ocampo;
NDLON: Chris Newman and Lisa Kung;
NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP:
Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J.
Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd and Yuval Miller; and
Roush,
Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
The Arizona Republicreports that US bid to host the 2018 World Cup may be jeopardized by plans to include the University of Phoenix Stadium as one of the venues. This quote from the story caught my attention:
'We've got 18 cities that are part of the bid, and it's a long way between now and 2018 or 2022,' U.S. Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati said last week when asked if Arizona wouldn't be included in the bid. 'At this point I think it'd be premature to make any decisions given the fact that the law is being challenged in a number of ways both legally and obviously in public opinion.'
At first glance, it sounds like Gulati is saying that the Arizona law is no big deal. But reading between the lines, he seems to be warning Arizona that the World Cup is at risk if the courts or the voters don't get rid of SB1070.
Surprising. I was watching the pageant with my wife and three daughters (I think these competitions are probably mostly aimed at women viewers and not men). During the interview segment with the last five contestants, Miss Oklahoma was asked her opinion of SB1070. The Arizona Daily Starsummed it up:
Arizona's controversial new immigration law hit the pageant
circuit Sunday when a 2010 Miss USA contestant was asked about SB
1070.
Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard told judges she
supports the new law, which requires police enforcing another law
to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable
suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.
She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against
racial profiling.
“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so
wonderful about America. So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona
to create that law.”
Apparently, the answer didn't impress the judges to the extent needed to win. The charming Miss Michigan, Rima Fakih, won after she answered a question regarding whether health insurance reform should have mandated the inclusion of birth control pills in all health policies (she answered yes without equivocation). If Rima doesn't sound like the typical pageant winner's name, it's because Rima is the first Arab-American to win the competition and also the first Muslim-American. She's the daughter of Lebanese immigrants.
Surprising. I was watching the pageant with my wife and three daughters (I think these competitions are probably mostly aimed at women viewers and not men). During the interview segment with the last five contestants, Miss Oklahoma was asked her opinion of SB1070. The Arizona Daily Starsummed it up:
Arizona's controversial new immigration law hit the pageant
circuit Sunday when a 2010 Miss USA contestant was asked about SB
1070.
Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard told judges she
supports the new law, which requires police enforcing another law
to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable
suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.
She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against
racial profiling.
“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so
wonderful about America. So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona
to create that law.”
Apparently, the answer didn't impress the judges to the extent needed to win. The charming Miss Michigan, Rima Fakih, won after she answered a question regarding whether health insurance reform should have mandated the inclusion of birth control pills in all health policies (she answered yes without equivocation). If Rima doesn't sound like the typical pageant winner's name, it's because Rima is the first Arab-American to win the competition and also the first Muslim-American. She's the daughter of Lebanese immigrants.
The NY Times' Nina Bernstein reports on spouses of US citizens who are facing exile for technical and minor violations of their visa status. DHScomes off fairly sympathetically in the story - the implication is they were trying to help and the mean courts and the dysfunctional Congress are to blame. But ICE has a lot of discretion in deciding who to put in to deportation proceedings. They have been encouraged to look at the facts of every case and use common sense in determining which people to put in deportation proceedings. They are not obligated to put every person in to deportation proceedings that they learn are here illegally. People otherwise in a position to fix their immigration status, who have nothing in their background that is worrisome and who are immediate relatives of US citizens should be textbook examples of where such discretion should be exercised.
Alan Bersin, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection is in trouble for not completing I-9 forms for 10 household workers since 1993. Bersin paid taxes on the employee's wages and there is no indication that the workers were illegally present. But still...
There have been many op-ed pieces discussing the GOP's suicidal alienation of Latino voters. There is no evidence that Republicans will even get a short term boost from anti-immigration voters (the relatively small number of people who make that their major electoral issue) since these folks overwhelmingly vote Republican anyway. And the long term harm in terms of getting votes from the country's fastest growing electoral group will be massive.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson piece this morning does a good job summing up the stakes:
Ethnic politics is symbolic and personal. Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gained African American support by calling Coretta Scott King while her husband was in prison. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost support by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A generation of African American voters never forgot either gesture.
Republicans have now sent three clear signals to Hispanic voters:
California's Proposition 187, which was passed in 1994 and attempted to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education before being struck down in court; the immigration debate of 2006, dominated by strident Republican opponents of reform; and now the Arizona immigration law. According to a 2008 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 49 percent of Hispanics said that Democrats had more concern for people of their background; 7 percent believed this was true of Republicans. Since the Arizona controversy, this gap can only have grown. In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile.
Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.
