(MintPress) – “In 2012 we like to believe that racism doesn’t exist, but the new racism, directed at Latinos, is ‘Go back to your country,’” Karen Tumlin, managing attorney at the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) in Los Angeles told MintPress.
Tumlin’s organization has partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Asian American Justice Center, National Day Labor Organizing Network and others to block implementation of the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070 in Arizona this week.
The coalition of civil rights organizations has asked a federal district court to rethink the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will allow police to enforce the so-called “show me your papers” provision, saying that it’s an invitation to racial profiling on a massive scale.
SB 1070 challenged
On June 25, a ruling in Arizona v. United States overturned several sections of the Arizona law, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, or SB 1070, stating that they are pre-empted by federal law. However, a section requiring police to attempt to verify a person’s immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country illegally remained on the books.
Arizona’s latest efforts to crack down on immigration are being challenged by the suit and another one filed last month. As MintPress previously reported, immigration rights groups in Arizona pled their case in June for class action status against the state’s controversial SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration bill, a form of lawsuit that would allow thousands of residents to add their names to the list of plaintiffs claiming the law led to violations of their individual rights. Arguments for class action status were heard last month in an Arizona U.S. District Court.
The new suit asks the court to hold off on implementing the law until the court has had time to consider the claims that the law is unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the NILC and other groups asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to block enforcement of the requirement before it goes into effect in Arizona later this month.
The lawsuit includes evidence and claims that are not present in the federal government’s separate challenge to SB 1070, on which the U.S. Supreme Court issued the June 25 decision. In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of SB 1070. The court noted potential constitutional problems with the “show me your papers” provision, which NILC noted in a press release this week in an effort to build its case.
Evidence of discrimination against Latinos
The civil rights organizations argue that Latinos in Arizona will be subject to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions under the new law, and they have documented instances of this happening in Arizona already and in Alabama, where a similar law has been on the books for several years.
Tumlin cited examples of Latino families in Alabama who had lived in the state for decades reporting jeers of “Go back to your own country.” Some were discriminated against by landlords who asked to see proof of citizenship, which is illegal. And other individuals who called her organizations’ hotline, which was set up to track instances of discrimination, reported being the victims of racially motivated verbal attacks.
Similar stories have started coming in from Arizona, even before the law has gone into effect Tumlin said, adding that “this is the corrosive element of these types of laws.”
“The Supreme Court ruling opens the door to anti-immigrant abuses we’ve seen in other states with similar laws,” said Grace Meng, U.S. researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in a release from the group. “The court said it was too soon to know what harm there might be from this one provision, but the harm from a similar provision in Alabama is all too clear.”
Effect of immigration laws on society debated
“Communities need to ask ‘what is the impact’ of these types of laws,” Tumlin said. “Does Alabama or Arizona want to be the type of place that makes judgments on people because of race or skin color.”
The civil rights groups are also presenting evidence that legislators who supported the law routinely used false “facts” and discriminatory language to impose statewide the racial profiling tactics used by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. If allowed to go into effect, the law will violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, they argue.
In their motion, the civil rights groups contend that one section in particular of the law unlawfully discriminates against Latinos and individuals of Mexican origin.
“This latest legal challenge is unsurprising, as opponents of SB 1070 have indicated they’ll go to any length in order to block Arizona’s implementation of this law,” said Matthew Benson, a spokesperson for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released to MintPress.
“The Supreme Court has already spoken unanimously on the constitutionality of this provision. Governor Brewer is hopeful Arizona law enforcement will soon at long last be empowered to enforce SB 1070, showing that it can be done fairly, lawfully and in harmony with civil rights and the Constitution. Ultimately, that’s the only way that residents of this State will be able to put to rest the fear-mongering and outrageous allegations made by opponents of SB 1070,” Benson said.
But the civil rights groups said in a release that “police chiefs across the country have long concluded that section 2B could not be implemented in a race-neutral manner. Immigration experts agree that there is no way to determine immigration status based on external or physical characteristics and that police will end up using race and ethnicity to decide who could be in the country without authorization.”
“Our Constitution protects us from state laws that intend to discriminate based on the color of a person’s skin or her or his nationality,” said Tumlin.
“The district court should block this hateful provision that threatens countless Arizonans’ basic right to live free from fear of harassment or prolonged detention.”