Latinos and Immigration
The Supreme Court’s decision in the SB 1070 case is a big win for opponents of the law. Although it leaves the odious “show me your papers” provision in place, the posture of that case as a facial challenge always made that a tough claim to win in this case, and the Court left the door open for a subsequent as-applied challenge. Since it seems impossible to implement that provision without the use of racial profiling, I think the odds of success for such a challenge are very good.
Somewhat relatedly, this Gallup poll helps to put SB 1070 and the attitudes of Latino voters towards immigration into context.
I’m especially interested in the right-hand column (Latino voters) and how it differs from the left-hand column (Latinos in general). I find it totally unsurprising and not at all contradictory for two things to be simultaneously true: (1) immigration is not the most important political issue for most Latino voters and (2) Latinos are likely to vote overwhelmingly for Obama in his reelection bid because of Republican immigration efforts like SB 1070.
Since Latino voters are disproportionately at the bottom of the income ladder, they are concerned about the same sorts of bread-and-butter issues that worry other low-income people (health care, unemployment, etc.). This is true even of immigration, about which Latino voters have very complicated views. As low-income people, they are more directly impacted by new migrants competing with them for jobs. Most would not support the notion of open borders. Most would acknowledge the legitimacy of efforts to combat illegal immigration while sympathizing with those who have been here illegally for a long time.
All that said, they perceive a great deal of anti-Latino animus coming from the Republican base on this issue. And they are disgusted by the way in which Republican politicians have been willing to pander to that animus. This administration has a very mixed record on deportation. (And I only say mixed because of pretty recent policy initiatives that have yet to bear fruit. If it weren’t for those, it’s record would be unambiguously bad.) But the administration has not mixed its harsh deportation policies with the kind of harsh Latino-bashing rhetoric that has characterized Republican immigration politics. I think this poll supports the notion that Latino disapproval of the Republican party has less to do with substantive policy goals (although those matter) than with hateful rhetoric and racial profiling coming from people like Sheriff Joe.
This brings me back around to SB 1070. The show-me-your-papers provision is symbolic of the connection between opposition to illegal immigration and anti-Latino animus on the right. It provides very little bang for the buck, and many (most?) of those paying the buck will be lawfully resident Latinos. They are the ones who will be most inconvenienced by demands to produce documentation of their right to be here and they will be made to feel less secure in their daily lives by the possibility of such demands. And so its survival substantially mitigates the implications of today’s decision for Latinos in Arizona and elsewhere. I think it is very telling that Jan Brewer calls today’s decision striking down virtually the entire bill except for the show-me-your-papers provision a “victory.” Brewer even referred to it “the heart of SB 1070.” [Identifying the provision most likely to humiliate and frighten lawful Latino residents (while doing very little to combat illegal immigration) as the "heart" of a bill seems to confirm the widespread Latino perception that much of the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric coming out of the Republican party is actually demographic panic dressed up as a color-blind desire to protect the rule of law. And though many Latinos do not consider immigration to be a priority will allow the Republican approach to the issue to guide their voting choice this November. But the real issue will not be illegal immigration, or even immigration policy more broadly. It will be disgust with a party whose base questions our presence here, legally or not.]
UPDATE: I added a few additional comments in brackets at the end.
Its sad that we aren’t welcoming to all immigrants. Our laws are creating the problem, not the people.
The ‘show me your papers’ reminds me of the Nazi Sgt Shultz on the old Hogans Hero’s TV show running around saying “papers please’. The similarity is frightening.
I think it important to credit where credit is due and so I tip my Hat to President Obama on his amnesty to younger indocumentados who would have been eligible under the DREAM act – if it had passed. I will not vote for Obama in November (for various reasons), but I gladly give him credit for doing the right thing regarding this small group of Latinos. I am very glad he did this.
As Romney shows, not all Republicans are so strident on indocumentados, but some are, and those Republicans who are for whatever reason so blind regarding indocumentados (most indocumentados are Latino folks) are missing the point, and for that matter, they are missing the boat.
We need to normalize the status of decent, hard-working indocumentados and move on to tending other matters. Certainly, all can agree that we need to deport indocumentados who are convicted of crimes, but the majority of indocumentados are hard-working, decent types.
Balancing mercy with justice then, it seems the best course is to grant permanent, Permanent Residence status to non-criminal indocumentados. The mercy is of course they would be able to live and work here without fear. The justice is that, as Permanent Residents, they would not be eligible to vote.
Problem solved.
I don’t think there is any way to read today’s decision except to conclude that the Court’s decision is strong affirmation of the federal government’s essentially plenary power regarding immigration issues.
I also agree that Arizona will likely have a very difficult time fending off as-applied challenges to the “show me your papers” provision.
I agree William. The main effect will be if they catch a robber or a drunk driver and in the process of jailing and formally charging him with the crime, if it becomes clear the man is undocumented, then AZ is authorized to notify the federal immigration authorities, who will then decide how to best handle that.
Also, and importantly, this court decision will likely dissuade other states from coming up with similar or worse state-level immigration.
Like providing for a standing army, securing the nation’s borders is a federal task.
Oops – “state-level immigration laws.”
Ken–
I know this may seem like an arcane legal distinction, but the decision reaffirms that there can’t be any “state-level immigration laws.” The three sections of the AZ statute that were struck down were nixed precisely because they impinged on the federal government’s near-100% control of immigration law. The Court let the remaining provision–the so-called “show me your papers” provision–stand, for the time being at least, because it concluded that on its face, the provision was incidental to the state’s valid authority to make lawful stops. In addition, state authorities are required to pass on to federal authorities the immigration status inquiries resulting from such stops. The Court likely thinks that the remaining provision will be back before it at some time in the future, after lower courts wrestle with challenges to the provision that are based on allegations of racial profiling, for example. I realize that politicians often tend to regard court decisions more in political fallout terms than in legal terms, but Governor Brewer’s “victory” claim may prove pyrrhic, and, in the meantime, I think Latinos in Arizona, regardless of their immigration status, are right to fear that the surviving provision could well be enforced in a discriminatory manner.
I thought “Show Me Your Papers” came from an old WWII movie.
My experience with the Courts was that seriois efforts to deport ilegals once convicted of crimes really gained steam in the 80′s.
As the number of illegals grew and the political divide widened, the issues took up greater steam and particulaely continues to be “hot” politically in the border states.
IMO POTUS Did not make much effort ro deal with immigration til 2010 and the Dream Act.
Of course, in the face of 13% approval no compromise Congess, that is to some degree understandable.
Again we agree William. I meant to say the decision should discourage other states from enacting laws similar to the AZ one.
Also, yes, if I were a Latino in AZ, I would still be wary of racial profiling by Señor Arpaio and his men (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2012/06/26/sheriff-arpaio-im-going-enforce-our-state-laws). While ultimately someone will bring this last provision to court and it will fail as well, an indocumentado in AZ for now anyway, had best be on his toes i.e.; bien alerta.
As for Governor Brewer, she started off on the wrong track and I am not surprised she finds it difficult to change course. I only wish she and other Republicans like her did not take such an approach to this. Everyone agrees that criminal – if they are found to be without papers – should be sent back to Mexico. However the majority of the indocumentados are not drug dealers or car thieves; they are hard working family men with responsibilities to their families and they and their families ought not be forced to live in fear like this.
And for the records, I hold this view not because most of these folks are Catholic. It just so happens Mexico is our neighbor, not China or Tibet. I would say the same view if these were Chinese folks or Muslims (for example).
A drug dealer or a thief or a killer is one thing; someone who simply finds it necessary to move, makes the effort to do so, and finds a job and works hard to provide for his family is another matter altogether.
Hey, liberal nation. Isn’t it time we tossed a compliment towards SCOTUS on this one? Some were expecting that bastion of ultra-conservativism to grind down the indocumentados even more. But it didn’t. I say (for once) Yay, Roberts Court!
(But we’ll wait till Thursday to see what else they do :-(
On the front page of this morning’s ppaer, a lengthy article on Voter ID laws disenfranchising many more minorities than the “frauds” alleged (by our holier than thou conservatives who only care about wining – really.)
Worth a new threa?
(BTW – on new threads:- can we have one on Melinda Gates now stressing contraception as a public health issue – to the howls of religious conservatives?Another question” if someone makes athread here why would coments be off?
Does that mean they are instructing us poor unlearned or that they don’t want to hear another view??????)