A judge has
ruled that police in Arizona can immediately start enforcing the most
contentious section of the state's immigration law, marking the first time
officers can carry out a requirement that officers, while enforcing other
laws, question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country
illegally.
The decision on
Tuesday by U.S. district judge Susan Bolton is the latest milestone in a
two-year legal battle over the requirement. It culminated in a U.S. Supreme
Court decision in June that upheld the provision on the grounds that it doesn't
conflict with federal law.
Opponents who
call the requirement the "show me your papers" provision responded to the
supreme court decision by asking Bolton to block the requirement on different
grounds, arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and
unreasonably long detentions of Latinos if it's enforced.
Other less
controversial parts of the law have been in effect since July 2010, such as
minor changes to the state's 2005 immigrant smuggling law and a ban on state and
local government agencies from restricting the enforcement of federal
immigration law. But those provisions have gotten little, if any, use since they
were put into effect.
Arizona's law was passed in 2010 amid voter frustration with the state's role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five states - Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah - have adopted variations on Arizona's law. Guardian
The measure,
which is part of a broader law to combat illegal immigration in the state
bordering Mexico, requires police to check the immigration status of people they
stop and suspect are in the country illegally. Reuters Among the
opponents of the law was the Obama administration, which filed a challenge that
led to the most controversial parts of the statute being put on hold. Huffington
Post The ruling
upholding the "show me your papers" provision - also known as Section 2B - comes
after a two-year legal battle initiated by the Obama administration which argues
that it would lead to systematic racial profiling. globalpost.com Lawyers for
Brewer urged the judge to let the requirement go into effect. They argued that
the law's opponents were merely speculating in their racial profiling claims,
that police have received training to avoid discriminatory practices and that
officers must have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the
country illegally to trigger the requirement. Guardian
ISH/SM
- Latest News
- Top Hits