Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Will Arizona-Inspired Illegal Immigration Laws Run Afoul of Constitution?

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Will Arizona-Inspired Illegal Immigration Laws Run Afoul of Constitution?

Article excerpt

Courts take dim views of anti-illegal immigration laws in Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona, even as they start letting some provisions take effect. Police must now enforce the laws without profiling.

Courts are beginning to allow the so-called show me your papers clauses of tough new state immigration laws to take effect. But theyre warning states that the US Constitution frowns on any hint of profiling.

The US Supreme Court in June upheld show me your papers provisions in Arizona, which allow law-enforcement officials to ask for the immigration documents of people they suspect might be in the country illegally during routine stops. Now, lower courts are beginning to lift injunctions on similar laws in Georgia and Alabama, and a state judge was set to rule on whether to lift an injunction against it in Arizona itself, where Gov. Jan Brewer said that the heart of the states controversial law should be allowed to take effect.

As these laws take hold in the real world, focus is likely to shift to local and state police, who stand to face enormous pressure to use their expanded discretionary powers fairly and judiciously.

The idea that this is the rubber hitting the road is exactly right, says Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American Universitys Washington College of Law, in Washington. Law enforcement already has lots of opportunities to stop most people on a daily basis for entirely minor offenses. The question is, stopping people for spitting on the sidewalk or driving with a broken taillight, are we going to see those increase in jurisdictions that have the papers, please provision? In other words, you cannot use the possibility that someone is undocumented to justify the stop in the first place.

The issue has powerful emotional resonance in a country that historically valued freedom from government intrusion, raising the question of whether the immigration laws really catch more people in the net than the Constitution should allow, says Leon Friedman, a law professor at Hofstra University.

These concerns relate to the Constitutions Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from warrantless searches and seizures and restricts police from conducting random ID checks of people walking around on American streets. The immigration laws passed legal muster because a person has to have been detained or accused of a crime before police check their name against the e-Verify system, a federal immigration database.

You cant just stop them on the street and say, Show your identification, Professor Friedman says. There has to be a legitimate reason for stopping or arresting them, and then you cant keep them indefinitely. In fact, the states have said, We can keep you for a week, but the Supreme Court said they cant do that.

The bigger challenge for the implementation of show me your papers provisions may be the Constitution's equal protection clause, which guarantees that any jurisdiction gives its people "the equal protection of the laws. …

Author Advanced search


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.