Civil Society, Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Migration & Refugees, North America

Fight Over Arizona’s Migrant Law Heads to the Courts

William Fisher

NEW YORK, May 18 2010 (IPS) - The controversy over Arizona’s new immigration law heated up further Monday when a powerful coalition of civil rights and immigration advocates asked a U.S. federal court to find the new law unconstitutional and issue an injunction against its taking effect.

The lawsuit named the state’s sheriffs and county attorneys – those who would have to enforce the legislation – as defendants. The new law, which mandates police officers to demand identification if there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ a person is in the U.S. illegally, is set to become effective in late July.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican-American Legal Defence and Education Fund, the National Immigration Law Centre, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, the National Day Labourer Organising Network and the Asian Pacific American Legal Centre.

The groups charged that the law “violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law because it unlawfully invites the racial profiling of Latinos and other people who look or sound ‘foreign-born’. It also violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by interfering with the federal government’s authority to regulate and enforce immigration.”

The suits was filed on behalf of a number of residents and groups, including the Service Employees International Union, the Southside Presbyterian Church, the Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, and the Muslim American Society.

“It is practically impossible to think of any legitimate way police could develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully without racial profiling,” lawyers for the groups said at a Monday press conference.

If it goes into effect, the new law “would essentially turn Arizona into a police state, where merely looking ‘foreign’ authorises the police to treat you as potential criminal suspect. Which is why many top law enforcement officials oppose this law.”

Chief John Harris of Sahuarita, the current president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said he opposed the law before Governor Jan Brewer signed it and still does today.

He noted that immigration has traditionally been a federal issue, and the police already have “manpower and budget issues” that will only get worse as enforcing the law further strains police resources. He’s also concerned that victims may not report crimes to his officers.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is also reviewing the legislation and may mount a court challenge to its constitutionality.

Outside Washington, similar laws are being considered by at least 10 states including Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Maryland.

But in Florida, the Arizona law was strongly denounced by Marco Rubio, a conservative whose primary challenge forced Republican Governor Charlie Christ to opt to run as an Independent. Rubio says he believes immigration is a function the federal government can do well.

Florida has a large Latino population, and polling indicates that a large majority of those voters believe that that the new law will lead to racial profiling.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported Tuesday this morning on the emergence of what it calls “an ironic subtext” to the legal battle.

That subtext comes in the form of a legal opinion from the administration of former President George W. Bush. Written in 2002, the opinion from the DOJ’s influential Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concludes that state police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law.

The opinion was written by the then head of OLC, Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write the so-called “torture memos” that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Brewer last month, makes the “willful failure” to carry immigration documents a crime and empowers police to question anyone if authorities have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant.

It has drawn words of condemnation from President Barack Obama and intense opposition from civil rights groups, who on Monday filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has reportedly been “working around the clock”. Attorneys close to the action say DOJ has a lot of lawyers working on the case, and is taking a hard look at filing its own lawsuit or intervening.

Justice Department officials declined to comment Monday beyond repeating that they are continuing to explore the government’s legal options.