The Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. United States, in a resounding defeat for the anti-immigration movement, the Court affirmatively stated that three of the four provisions in question are PREEMPTED by Federal law, and most importantly that the show me your papers provision must be NARROWLY construed and enforced in order for it to remain constitutional, essentially inviting further challenges should there be any hint of racial profiling in its enforcement.
In order to enforce a show me your papers provisions, the State would have to check the immigration status of EVERY person, in EVERY stop, for EVERY crime, EVERY time. Short of doing this, racial profiling will occur, since there could be NO legitimate way to determine someones immigration status. Especially since the Supreme Court struck down the provision that that barred the Arizona from stopping people because they had a reasonable cause to believe they were undocumented. This is a KEY part of the HB 87, Section 8, so we have much to celebrate. Because Section 8 has a key provision requiring police to check of the immigration status of anyone the have reasonable cause to believe is undocumented. Section 8 cannot be enforced without this provision being removed and the police checking the immigration status of EVERYONE they stop and/or arrest.
Further, because Section 7 of the Georgia’s HB 87, dealing with harboring and trafficking, was NOT part of the Supreme Court case in Arizona, we remain confident that the Court of Appeals will uphold the District Court and strike down this section of HB 87. The bottom line? This is a terrific decision, a HUGE blow to the anti-immigration movement and the likes of Kris Kobach and his ilk who wrote the Arizona law and helped Rep. Matt Ramsey write Georgia’s HB 87.
Let me end with a quote from Justice Kennedy’s decision today:
The United States has established that §§3, 5(C), and 6
of S. B. 1070 are preempted. It was improper, however, to
enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to
construe it and without some showing that enforcement of
the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law
and its objectives.