Plano Star-courier > News
Immigration: Hot button issue comes front and center after Supreme Court decision
By Marthe Stinton, mstinton@starlocalnews.com
Being a border state has never been more controversial -- border wars are erupting, and local law enforcement agencies are left to handle the aftermath. Arizona went as far as passing a Senate bill hoping to give more power to local law enforcement and take immigration matters into their own hands, ultimately resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling the bill unconstitutional.
The court ruled three of four sections of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 unconstitutional because they undermined the federal government's powers.
The court said it is unconstitutional for police to arrest immigrants without a warrant where "probable cause" exists showing they committed any public offense, making them removable from the country. It was also ruled unconstitutional to make it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry papers and other government IDs. The court also said it was unconstitutional to forbid those not authorized to work in the U.S. to apply, solicit or perform work that would include illegal immigrants standing in a parking lot who gesture or nod their willingness to work.
The court did, however, uphold the section allowing state and local law enforcement officials to check immigration status when enforcing other laws.
SMU's George Martinez, a political science professor specializing in immigration and federal court litigation and civil rights, said the Supreme Court's decision is important to federal laws but discourages states from getting involved with immigration laws.
"I don't think it would be wise for the state legislature to enact something that is going to be similar to the one remaining provision, because the Supreme Court is already inviting lawsuits to challenge that one once it goes into practice," Martinez said. "It is said that they will wait and see how that will work out. They haven't approved it yet -- and that could ultimately be unconstitutional -- but they are waiting to see how that's applied."
Martinez said the decision will affect the state of Texas.
"It is going to have an immediate impact and will make a very clear case that a Farmers Branch ordinance dealing with immigration is going to be struck down," he said. "That ordinance has been struck down a number of times, but this will pretty much guarantee that this is pre-emptive of federal law so it will make an immediate impact on Texas in that case."
But this isn't so, said Kris Kobach, legal representative for the city of Farmers Branch, who believes the upholding of one portion of the bill will help the city's case. The city is now in litigation regarding an immigration ordinance, which has been blocked at every level in federal courts. The ordinance would require renters to get an occupancy license and prove they are legally in the U.S. Landlords who violate the ordinance would be charged with Class C misdemeanors and have their business licenses suspended.
"It started with a popular referendum vote on it, then there were two ordinances in a row so the city and the people of Farmers Branch have made it clear that they want to take reasonable steps to discourage illegal immigration," Kobach said. "The city has made clear that it wants to reduce the cost to taxpayers of illegal immigration. I think that is a driving factor. If you look at the evidence in court it is clear that the city council wanted to reduce the costs of illegal immigration on the community of Farmers Branch."
Kobach said if the city of Farmers Branch could somehow encourage people to comply with federal immigration laws, "that's a good thing for the city."
Martinez said the immigration issue isn't really as bad as it seems and called Arizona's efforts to take immigration laws into its own hands a political move.
"I think there was a group in Arizona that wanted to do this and I think the governor wanted to do it to help her re-election chances," he said. "The fact of the matter is that the immigration laws are being enforced and the administration has deported about 400,000 a year -- which is twice as many, for example, as President George W. Bush. It is a myth that the immigration laws aren't being enforced, when they clearly have been."
Martinez said President Barack Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history.
"It was a politicized issue that really didn't have much to do with the facts," he said. "That's one of the things that Justice Antonin Scalia has been criticized for now too, because he repeated some of those kinds of statements and even now one of the leading judges in the Seventh Circuit has said there is no factual basis for these statements about immigrants."
Martinez said it's wise the state of Texas hasn't enacted a law allowing officers to ask for immigration status while enforcing other laws because "it is not going to be successful in the long run," he said.
But that could change, according to Collin College political science professor Loren Miller, who said the state of Texas will soon see some similar legislation.
"State Rep. Debbie Riddle is very conservative and is already going to be submitting bills into the Texas Legislature that basically would allow the part that was OK'd by the Supreme Court to be applied in Texas," he said. "Now Gov. [Rick] Perry, when he was asked earlier, he said the Arizona law is not for Texas but never specified what was for Texas."
Scott Riling, Riddle's chief of staff, said Riddle, R-Houston, will take a good look at the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision before taking any actions.
"Her House Bill 17, which was about criminal trespassing or allowing officers to ask about immigration status or whether they were in the country legally, was the only provision upheld in Arizona's bill," he said. "We will be in consultation with law enforcement and the Attorney General's office to get input on the possibility of re-filing or changing [her previously submitted] legislation for the next session."
According to her website, Riddle sees a partial victory in the court's decision because it upheld the most controversial part of the law which allowed police officers to check a person's immigration status while stopping them for another violation.
"Every year, illegal immigration costs the state billions in your hard earned tax dollars by providing services to those who have no right to be in our country in the first place," Riddle's website said. "We must stop all public benefits to illegal immigrants, punish employers who hire them and allow our local law enforcement officials to expedite the process of arresting and deporting them to their country of origin."
State Representative Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, also anticipates several new pieces of legislation will be filed next session.
"Border security, human trafficking, and illegal immigration are still important issues to the residents of North Texas," he said. "In fact, last session, legislation similar to Arizona's law to check a person's immigration status passed the Texas House with overwhelming bipartisan support but failed to receive a committee hearing in the Texas Senate. The legislation would have required a sheriff to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person who is currently detained on another felony or DWI charge and then report undocumented immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
The court ruled three of four sections of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 unconstitutional because they undermined the federal government's powers.
The court said it is unconstitutional for police to arrest immigrants without a warrant where "probable cause" exists showing they committed any public offense, making them removable from the country. It was also ruled unconstitutional to make it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry papers and other government IDs. The court also said it was unconstitutional to forbid those not authorized to work in the U.S. to apply, solicit or perform work that would include illegal immigrants standing in a parking lot who gesture or nod their willingness to work.
The court did, however, uphold the section allowing state and local law enforcement officials to check immigration status when enforcing other laws.
SMU's George Martinez, a political science professor specializing in immigration and federal court litigation and civil rights, said the Supreme Court's decision is important to federal laws but discourages states from getting involved with immigration laws.
"I don't think it would be wise for the state legislature to enact something that is going to be similar to the one remaining provision, because the Supreme Court is already inviting lawsuits to challenge that one once it goes into practice," Martinez said. "It is said that they will wait and see how that will work out. They haven't approved it yet -- and that could ultimately be unconstitutional -- but they are waiting to see how that's applied."
Martinez said the decision will affect the state of Texas.
"It is going to have an immediate impact and will make a very clear case that a Farmers Branch ordinance dealing with immigration is going to be struck down," he said. "That ordinance has been struck down a number of times, but this will pretty much guarantee that this is pre-emptive of federal law so it will make an immediate impact on Texas in that case."
But this isn't so, said Kris Kobach, legal representative for the city of Farmers Branch, who believes the upholding of one portion of the bill will help the city's case. The city is now in litigation regarding an immigration ordinance, which has been blocked at every level in federal courts. The ordinance would require renters to get an occupancy license and prove they are legally in the U.S. Landlords who violate the ordinance would be charged with Class C misdemeanors and have their business licenses suspended.
"It started with a popular referendum vote on it, then there were two ordinances in a row so the city and the people of Farmers Branch have made it clear that they want to take reasonable steps to discourage illegal immigration," Kobach said. "The city has made clear that it wants to reduce the cost to taxpayers of illegal immigration. I think that is a driving factor. If you look at the evidence in court it is clear that the city council wanted to reduce the costs of illegal immigration on the community of Farmers Branch."
Kobach said if the city of Farmers Branch could somehow encourage people to comply with federal immigration laws, "that's a good thing for the city."
Martinez said the immigration issue isn't really as bad as it seems and called Arizona's efforts to take immigration laws into its own hands a political move.
"I think there was a group in Arizona that wanted to do this and I think the governor wanted to do it to help her re-election chances," he said. "The fact of the matter is that the immigration laws are being enforced and the administration has deported about 400,000 a year -- which is twice as many, for example, as President George W. Bush. It is a myth that the immigration laws aren't being enforced, when they clearly have been."
Martinez said President Barack Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history.
"It was a politicized issue that really didn't have much to do with the facts," he said. "That's one of the things that Justice Antonin Scalia has been criticized for now too, because he repeated some of those kinds of statements and even now one of the leading judges in the Seventh Circuit has said there is no factual basis for these statements about immigrants."
Martinez said it's wise the state of Texas hasn't enacted a law allowing officers to ask for immigration status while enforcing other laws because "it is not going to be successful in the long run," he said.
But that could change, according to Collin College political science professor Loren Miller, who said the state of Texas will soon see some similar legislation.
"State Rep. Debbie Riddle is very conservative and is already going to be submitting bills into the Texas Legislature that basically would allow the part that was OK'd by the Supreme Court to be applied in Texas," he said. "Now Gov. [Rick] Perry, when he was asked earlier, he said the Arizona law is not for Texas but never specified what was for Texas."
Scott Riling, Riddle's chief of staff, said Riddle, R-Houston, will take a good look at the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision before taking any actions.
"Her House Bill 17, which was about criminal trespassing or allowing officers to ask about immigration status or whether they were in the country legally, was the only provision upheld in Arizona's bill," he said. "We will be in consultation with law enforcement and the Attorney General's office to get input on the possibility of re-filing or changing [her previously submitted] legislation for the next session."
According to her website, Riddle sees a partial victory in the court's decision because it upheld the most controversial part of the law which allowed police officers to check a person's immigration status while stopping them for another violation.
"Every year, illegal immigration costs the state billions in your hard earned tax dollars by providing services to those who have no right to be in our country in the first place," Riddle's website said. "We must stop all public benefits to illegal immigrants, punish employers who hire them and allow our local law enforcement officials to expedite the process of arresting and deporting them to their country of origin."
State Representative Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, also anticipates several new pieces of legislation will be filed next session.
"Border security, human trafficking, and illegal immigration are still important issues to the residents of North Texas," he said. "In fact, last session, legislation similar to Arizona's law to check a person's immigration status passed the Texas House with overwhelming bipartisan support but failed to receive a committee hearing in the Texas Senate. The legislation would have required a sheriff to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person who is currently detained on another felony or DWI charge and then report undocumented immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
Copyright © 2013 - Star Local News