Arizona’s politicians are offering their assessments of today’s landmark Supreme Court hearing on Arizona’s immigration law. SB 1070 is being challenged by the Obama administration, which did not fare well today according to court observers on both sides of the aisle.
The administration’s lawyer agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ contention that the case has nothing to do with ethnic and racial profiling. Opponents to the law have insisted that SB 1070 allowed racial profiling. Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne said “that is a persistent myth that should end today.”
Horne released a statement on the first day of arguments, “Today’s hearing went well. The Obama Administration took the outrageous step of suing one of the 50 states for trying to enforce federal law. Arizona has been hit disproportionately hard by illegal immigration and the state had no choice but to pass SB 1070 to protect our own citizens.”
Horne, who is currently serving as acting Governor, while the state’s Governor Brewer and Secretary of State are in Washington D.C. said that he has “read the transcript of today’s SB 1070 hearing in the US Supreme Court. Section 2, the most important of the 4 sections of SB1070 which are being challenged, appears to have the support of Liberal as well as Conservative Justices, and mainly with a large unanimous vote. Section 2 requires Police Officers to engage in a lawful arrest or stop, and to have reasonable suspicion, to inquire with ICE about whether the person is in this country legally. Even two of the most Liberal Justices, Sotamayor and Breyer, asked questions indicating they may vote to hold that section of the law Constitutional.”
The lawyer for Arizona pointed out that a Phoenix Police officer had been shot by a suspect who had been accused of attempted murder in El Salvador, had been pulled over three times before encountering this police officer, but had never had his immigration status checked. That was due to the City of Phoenix policies that would be illegal under Section 2. Had inquiry been made before he encountered the Phoenix officer, that officer would not have been shot, according to Horne.
Horne called the Justices’ comments “very encouraging.” He cited Justice Scalia’s comment that under SB 1070, “Arizona is not trying to kick out anybody that the federal government has not already said do not belong here.” Horne noted that Justice Scalia added the analogy that federal law prohibits bank robbery, and stated, “Can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? I think it is.”
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the federal role in enforcing immigration law is not harmed by SB 1070 since “all it does is notify the Federal Government, here’s someone who is here illegally, here’s someone who is removable.”
Horne, the state’s top attorney, concluded “Most troubling is the Federal Government’s argument that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because Arizona interferes with the Federal monopoly on foreign relations. Arizona has not opened any embassies. It has passed a law that foreign countries disagree with. If a Federal Judge can invalidate a state law on the grounds that other countries disagree with it (and it therefore interferes with the Federal monopoly on foreign relations) America’s sovereignty will be severely compromised. Justice Scalia asked the Obama Administration lawyer if “we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico… (that) sounded like what you were saying.”
Congressman Raul Grijalva said that the feeling he got from protestors was “very positive.” Grijalva, an open border proponent, claimed that if the law was upheld by the Court it would “put the country into chaos.”
In response, Grijalva’s Republican challenger in the Congressional District 3 race, Gabby Saucedo Mercer, says “Grijalva’s failure, in his ten years in Congress, to sponsor meaningful legislation that would serve the country’s economic and national security while addressing the very difficult questions and issues pertaining to immigration, has created a chaotic atmosphere, in which communication has broken down, and real solutions are not being discussed.”
In an effort to keep the racial profiling myth alive, and hyperbole the basis of all discussion, SEIU chimed in. SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer Eliseo Medina issued a written statement, “State laws that legalize racial profiling, that deny or restrict our right to vote, that attack the rights of workers, are immoral and shameful, and the court must overturn them. The Supreme Court will have its say but we will have the final word. It is up to us, the people, to uphold our national values; to protect the rights of workers; to protect our right to vote; to fight discrimination and hate.”