SPRINGDALE — Immigration proponents in Northwest Arkansas hailed a Supreme Court ruling as a victory Monday but cautioned that it also “opens the door to racial profiling.”
The Supreme Court decision to strike down three provisions of Arizona’s tough immigration law indicates such laws are the jurisdiction of the federal government, said Mireya Reith, executive director of the Arkansas United Community Coalition, a nonprofit organization that works to “empower” immigrants.
“We believe this morning’s decision represents a strong affirmation that it’s the federal government’s role to develop immigration law and not individual states,” she said at a news conference at the Family Resource Center-JTL Shop in Springdale. A similar news conference was held simultaneously in Little Rock.
The Supreme Court ruling let stand the centerpiece of Arizona’s law, Section 2(B) of Senate Bill 1070, which was enacted in 2010.
That section states that police officers who suspect that a person is an illegal alien “shall” make a “reasonable attempt ... to deter-mine the immigration status of the person.” The section also requires that immigration status be checked before an arrested person can be released. Section 2(B) has become known as the “show me your papers” provision.
Charles Kester, a Fayetteville lawyer who attended the news conference, said that provision wasn’t struck down, “But it wasn’t endorsed either.”
The Supreme Court could revisit the “show me your papers” provision later, Kester said.
“It’s definitely not a green light,” he said. “For three provisions, it was a red light.For this one, it was a yellow light.”
U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said he was happy that the “common sense” provision wasn’t overturned.
“What the Supreme Court is saying is they don’t know exactly how the state is going to carry that out, and there are probably some ways you could approach that that aren’t unconstitutional,” he said during a telephone interview. “They can’t rule specifically because they don’t know exactly what the state is going to do.”
The divided court struck down three major provisions of the Arizona law:
Requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers.
Making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.
Allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
The vote was 6-2 against making it a state crime not to carry immigration papers and 5-3 against the other twoprovisions.
“It appears the Supreme Court felt like they’d gone a little too far in a couple of areas,” Boozman said. “What the Supreme Court said was that in doing these other things, they felt like that would perhaps impede the federal government’s ability to carry out immigration policy.”
U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican who represents the 3rd Congressional District, said he had mixed opinions of the ruling. He is happy that Section 2(B) wasn’t struck down but “disappointed” about the other three provisions.
Womack said that when police officers stop a person, and “red flags” are evident, they need the authority to ask for proof of residency or immigration status. Those red flags would include driving without a license, being “unable to communicate” or having obviously fraudulent documents. Womack said he has heard about police officers having to issue a summons to a person with no identification, suspecting he won’t show up for court.
“It’s insulting that the law enforcement people would have to endure that,” he said. “To take that role of law enforcement away from them is an ill-conceived notion.”
Womack, former mayor of Rogers, was the f irst mayor in Arkansas to send his city’s police officers for federal 287(g) training. The program trains state and local law enforcement officers to also serve as U.S.immigration agents in the field or at jails. Six Rogers officers completed the fiveweek training program in 2007.
That came after a 2002 lawsuit in which the city of Rogers was sued for racial profiling. The Arkansas Municipal League settled the case to prevent litigation, but the city never admitted wrongdoing, Womack said.
“I’m absolutely convinced the city of Rogers was free from any guilt in the matter,” Womack said Monday. “It ultimately came down to a decision by the Municipal League to avoid the litigation. ... Since then, the city of Rogers has been involved in the deportation of thousands of people and not one time that I know of been accused of racial profiling.”
The Supreme Court ruling won’t affect the department’s 287(g) program, said Keith Foster, public information officer for the Rogers Police Department.
“The way our program is designed ... it’s strictly an investigative model,” he said. “What you’re talking about is a street model. On a traffic stop, they can ask for immigration paperwork if theythink you’re illegal.”
State Rep. Justin Harris, RWest Fork, said states began enacting immigration laws because the federal government hasn’t enforced its immigration laws.
“At some point we’ve got to give the states the right to make the decisions on what laws need to be passed to keep illegal immigration from happening and different services to have to be given,” he said. “It’s something we’re having to deal with at the state level because they’re not dealing with it on the federal level. We as state legislators are getting tired of the federal government not dealing with the issues.”
Speaking at the news conference in Little Rock, Alan Leveritt, publisher of the Arkansas Times newspaper, said Arkansas’ General Assembly defeated each one of 13 anti-immigration bills that came up in the 2011 session,and “that goes much to the great credit of the people of Arkansas, a sense of moderation and tolerance that is typical of this state.”
Last year, an Arkansas House of Representatives committee narrowly rejected a bill sponsored by Rep. Jon Hubbard, R-Jonesboro, to keep illegal aliens from getting publicly funded benefits after some lawmakers said the measure largely duplicated what’s already federal law.
Hubbard said Monday that he’s disappointed that the Arizona law wasn’t upheld by the Supreme Court, but he “can understand the logic that immigration issues fall under federal authority.
“However, when we have an agenda-driven regime who picks and chooses which federal laws they will enforce, this is very troubling to me,” he said, referring to the Obama administration.
Jeannie Burlsworth of Little Rock, chairman of the Secure Arkansas group that has twice tried to get proposals restricting services for illegal aliens on the ballot, said in a telephone interview that she considered the ruling “a good victory” because police officers should be able to check the immigration status on the people who they stop.
“Of course, I would have liked to see a stiffer penalty [for illegal aliens],” Burlsworth said, referring to provisions of the Arizona law that the court struck down. But she said she views the ruling as “an opening for states to move” legislation such as measures to deny public benefits to illegal aliens.
Information for this article was contributed by Michael R. Wickline of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and by The Associated Press.
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 06/26/2012