Hispanic community’s opinions strong on Supreme Court immigration case

Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – The Hispanic community is voicing strong opinions on a state immigration law case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear early next year.

Spanish language commentators say the court’s decision is likely to affect the 2012 U.S. presidential elections and the lives of millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

“Congress has repeatedly chosen not to act, though, prompting state legislatures to try to handle this issue on their own with devastating consequences,” said Janet Murguia, chief executive officer of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group. “A ruling from the Supreme Court striking down these anti-immigrant state laws could be the catalyst we need to finally see movement on immigration reform.”

Arizona law S.B. 1070 that took effect last year authorizes local police to question and arrest suspected illegal immigrants for deportation.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of the law, saying immigration enforcement is strictly a federal authority.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued an injunction against the law, which prompted the state to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, who authored SB 1070, said in a statement, “States have an inherent duty under law and the Constitution to protect their citizens from those who break our laws. I pray the Supreme Court honors states’ inherent authority and right under the police powers and supports Arizona in the protection of our state from the Obama administration, who has sided with foreign governments against our state and our citizens.”

A ruling is expected in June, just as the presidential candidates are preparing for primary elections.

During a Spanish language broadcast on the television channel Univision this week, Marcello Raimon of the Latin American news organization Agencia ANSA said that “we have to wait with our fingers crossed” in hope “that the Supreme Court does not decide to allow states to do what they want.”

He added, “It is on the conscience of the justices if they will destroy the lives of millions of people.”

About 400,000 illegal immigrants live in Arizona, according to the Pew Hispanic Center public policy foundation.

Roughly the same number, or 396,906 illegal immigrants, were deported by the U.S. government in fiscal 2011, the Justice Department reported.

However, they are only a small portion of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

California has the biggest illegal immigrant population at about 2.6 million, or 7 percent of its population.

As their numbers grow, outrage is increasing among state lawmakers.

After Arizona passed its law against illegal immigration, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws to keep out the immigrants. The Alabama law not only authorizes arrests by local police, it denies illegal immigrants rights to have their water and electricity connected in their homes.

By the first week of December, 42 states and Puerto Rico approved some kind of law touching on states’ rights regarding immigration, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

In their legal brief before the Supreme Court, lawyers for Arizona wrote, “The [Arizona] Legislature invoked its well established police powers in crafting SB 1070, for the purpose of protecting the people of Arizona. Rather than welcoming the Legislature’s enactment, the United States sued Arizona.”

“Contrary to the view of the United States, not every state action related to aliens is preempted by federal law…Only the determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which that person may remain, is the regulation of immigration.”

During the Univision program this week, host Jorge Ramos said, “I find it very interesting that instead of talking about immigration reform for 11 million undocumented immigrants, the anti-immigrant environment in the U.S. is so large we’re talking about these issues.”

Democrats and Republicans have promised reform, but have been unable to reach agreement on how to change immigration laws.

Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney has suggested a national identification card for foreigners who work in the United States. New laws would require they present their cards to employers before they could be hired. Otherwise, the employers could face penalties.

His top Republican opponent, New Gingrich, has advocated a “humane approach” to immigration enforcement.

The Supreme Court case on Arizona’s law is most likely to benefit Barack Obama’s re-election bid among Hispanic voters, according to political analysts.

Obama has spoken out against state laws like SB 1070 while Republicans generally support the state laws.

Five of the eight Supreme Court justices planning to vote on the final ruling were appointed by Republican administrations. Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by Obama, withdrew from the case because she helped the Obama administration craft its policy on immigration.

The last federal immigration reform law was in 1986 under the administration of former President Ronald Reagan.

---