Two years ago, when the Arizona Legislature passed the controversial SB 1070, immigration rights activists feared it was only the beginning. The anti-immigrant measure put new and significant burdens on non-citizens while seemingly encouraging law enforcement officials to rely on racial profiling. Many worried similar laws would start cropping up around the country, perhaps even more extreme versions. It wasn't a pretty picture.
Since today the Supreme Court struck down three of the four central pillars to SB 1070, it's an occasion to note that this scary vision of the future has not come to pass. Since SB 1070 became law in Arizona, copy-cat laws have only appeared in five other states. In all of them-Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah-at least some provision of the law has been blocked by the courts. Consider also that, according to the National Council of La Raza, in 31 other states, efforts to pass such a law have gone nowhere-lawmakers have either voted the bills down or killed them before they came up for a vote.
"Those states include many that actually have Republican super majorities," notes Clarissa Martinez, the director of immigration and civic engagement for La Raza. "The laws have proven to be costly, counterproductive and questionable on civil rights grounds."
Martinez took a measured stance on the Court's ruling today, which struck down the provisions that required immigrants to carry registration documents and made it a crime for undocumented workers to look for work, as well as allowing law enforcement to arrest those who might seem like they're here illegally. The remaining plank, however, still requires police to determine the immigration status of anyone arrested or detained who seems to elicit "reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented. "On the one hand we welcome that the Supreme Court struck three of the four provisions," she said. "On the other hand the one they allowed to stand is extremely problematic."
But advocates will likely get a second shot at arguing against that remaining provision, Martinez said. There are lawsuits pending against the other five states with similar laws. "Clearly and ironically, this being one of the biggest civil rights cases in front of the court, the civil rights grounds were not argued in the case," Martinez noted. "There are lawsuits pending in all of those states specifically on those grounds." Such arguments will emphasize that law necessarily requires racial profiling in order for police officers to determine whose immigration status will be checked.
In the meantime, it's seeming less likely that laws like Arizona's will continue to grow in popularity. Between the costs of litigation and the public scorn, it hasn't been a winning effort-especially given that three-fourths of the thing was just ruled unconstitutional by a very conservative court.
