SB 1070
At Supreme Court, Arizona Gets Help from the Usual Suspects
Following the filing last week of Arizona’s brief defending SB 1070, the Supreme Court has received a barrage of briefs supporting the notorious immigration law from a none-too-surprising array of suspects. As might be expected, the arguments range from the predictable (that the Obama Administration fails to enforce the immigration laws) to the provocative (that states can carry out all immigration functions short of deportation) to the preposterous (that the Constitution allows Arizona to wage war against an “invasion” of immigrants). Of course, while neither Arizona nor their lawyers can be held responsible for the arguments of outside organizations, the briefs still offer a revealing look at the identities and motivations of SB 1070’s most ardent supporters. Read More
In Fight Over SB 1070, Arizona Makes an All-Too-Familiar Case to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court case involving Arizona SB 1070 has officially entered the home stretch. On Friday, the Justices announced that oral arguments will take place on the fourth Wednesday in April, making it the final case to be heard this term. Yesterday, Arizona filed its much-anticipated brief at the Supreme Court, laying out its legal defense of the four provisions currently blocked by a preliminary injunction. To make its case to the Court, Arizona retained renowned attorney Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General who is simultaneously handling the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. But while the state may have brought in new lawyers, much of its brief reads like an all-too-familiar “study” from an anti-immigration organization. Read More
New Report Examines Dire Consequences of “Attrition through Enforcement” Immigration Strategy
Federal immigration enforcement resources have increased significantly in recent years, as have the number of deportations. Meanwhile, states have passed harsh immigration laws intended to crack down on unauthorized immigrants. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has announced that he supports a policy of “self-deportation.” What do these things have in common? The belief that making daily life miserable for undocumented immigrants will result in “self-deportation”—or “attrition through enforcement.” A new paper today out of the Immigration Policy Center connects the dots between the strategy of “attrition through deportation” and federal and state anti-immigrant proposals and explains how attrition through enforcement has gone from being a catchy phrase coined by immigration restrictionists to a frightening reality in many parts of the U.S. Read More
GOP Candidates Ignore Florida’s Diversifying Latino Population
Campaigning in Florida this month, GOP Presidential candidates continued to display a general lack of understanding of the state’s diversifying Latino population. While it’s well-documented that the Cuban-American population is currently a strong political force, the emerging story in Florida is that the state’s future voting population will become increasingly Latino, but less Cuban. Read More
Supreme Court to Weigh in on Injunctions Against Arizona SB 1070
Earlier today, the Supreme Court announced what many supporters and opponents of Arizona SB 1070 long expected: that the Justices will themselves have the final word on the validity of the injunctions entered shortly after the law was enacted last year. Technically, the question before the Justices is simply whether four of the law’s provisions should be temporarily blocked pending resolution of a larger legal challenge. In addition, the Court will not consider claims raised in a separate lawsuit by numerous immigrants’ and civil rights groups. But in the decision it ultimately issues, the Supreme Court may well provide broad guidance about what role, if any, local police may play in enforcing federal immigration law—which could in turn affect legal challenges to copycat laws in other states, such as Alabama. Read More
Arizona’s SB1070 Champion, State Senator Russell Pearce, Loses in Recall Election
Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, the leading force behind Arizona’s SB 1070 and other anti-immigrant legislation, was defeated in a recall election Tuesday. Fellow Republican Jerry Lewis—a moderate on immigration issues—won with 54% of the vote. Citing Pearce’s narrow anti-immigrant agenda and the damage SB 1070 inflicted on the state, a group called Citizens for a Better Arizona began the recall effort back in January. Today, many in Arizona and across the U.S. celebrate Pearce’s defeat as a victory for practical solutions over extremist rhetoric and anti-immigrant proposals. Pearce is believed to be the first Arizona state legislator to face a recall election. Read More
Congressional Members to Join Civil Rights Groups in Fight Against Alabama’s “Juan Crow” Law
In the days following passage of Alabama’s extreme immigration law (HB 56), many business, religious and civil rights leaders spoke out about the law’s damaging impact on immigrant communities, farms, businesses, and schools. Since then, many notable community and civil rights leaders have stepped forward to add their voice to those demanding a repeal of the law. The Alabama NAACP, for example, recently joined immigrant rights groups to call for an end to what one African American minister described as “Alabama’s worst times since the days of segregation and Jim Crow.” This week, Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez met with members of several congressional caucuses—Hispanic, Black, Asian Pacific American and Progressive—to address what he calls Alabama’s “civil rights emergency.” Read More
DOJ’s Lawsuit Against South Carolina Latest Legal Challenge to State Immigration Laws
BY KAREN TUMLIN, MANAGING ATTORNEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against South Carolina, challenging the state’s extreme anti-immigration law (SB 20). With this action, the Department of Justice charges that South Carolina, like Arizona and Alabama, have passed unconstitutional immigration laws. Civil rights groups (including the National Immigration Law Center) agree. Coalitions have filed suit in five states—Utah, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina—that passed their own Arizona-inspired laws in 2011. Fortunately, most of these states have seen their new, misguided laws lose much of their bite through civil rights coalition-led legal challenges. Here’s a round-up of the status of these legal cases. Read More
Why Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is Bluffing on State Immigration Laws
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has built a political career out of playing fast and loose with the facts about immigrants—from stories of “headless bodies” in the desert to mischaracterizing all unauthorized immigrants as “drug mules.” And she’s not finished yet. Following a recent GOP Presidential debate, Gov. Brewer overplayed her hand by assuring the Huffington Post that unauthorized immigrants fleeing Alabama are “probably going back to Mexico” and that Alabama farmers will “probably find the U.S. workers” they need to replace them. If you think Governor Brewer is “probably” bluffing, you’re “probably” right. Read More
The Facts (and Numbers) Don’t Matter in Alabama
Alabama Attorney General, Luther Strange, testifying before Congress. Photo by lutherstrange. As each day passes under Alabama’s new, highly restrictive immigration law (HB56), it is becoming increasingly clear that facts (and numbers) had very little to do with the passage of the law—and that they continue to be ignored as state officials defend the law. In fact, this willful disregard of facts and data may mean Alabama is about to pay a very high price for a small problem. Read More
All gifts are matched dollar for dollar
No one should face the immigration system alone
