Reaction mixed to ruling
Reaction to the news that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down major parts of Arizona’s rugged immigration laws was mixed Tuesday, one day after the high court’s ruling that could change the make-up of Alabama’s similar laws.
Locally, many Hispanic residents had been waiting to hear what the court had to say concerning the Arizona law because many parts of it were similar to ones passed in Alabama last year.
“This is a good day,” said Ernesto Tomas, as he shopped at a local store Tuesday morning.
“I hope they do the same thing to Alabama’s.”
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday gave a split ruling on Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law.
The court blocked most of the law, but upheld the section that directs police officers to check immigration status during an arrest or other contact.
The court overturned two sections of Arizona’s law that are similar to Alabama’s. Both states created misdemeanors — one that banned illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places and another that made it a state crime to fail to carry alien registration documents.
Alabama lawmakers had mixed reaction, some claiming that the court’s ruling was favorable to Alabama, while others said the decision would help pave the way of stopping this state’s tough new law.
Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard called the ruling a victory for states like Alabama.
“The Court’s decision to uphold the real teeth of Arizona’s illegal immigration law is a victory for Alabama and for all states that are fed up with the federal government’s refusal to enforce the law,” Hubbard said in a news release. “States really are the last line of defense to protect the rights of the people, and never has that been more evident than with President Obama ordering federal agents to stand down on immigration enforcement actions. States have not only the right, but the duty to uphold the rule of law and protect their citizens, especially when the federal government refuses to do so.”
Like Alabama, Arizona has argued that states have a role to play in immigration law enforcement. The court, however, rejected the arguments made by Arizona — and also made by Alabama — that creating separate state laws for federal immigration violations does not conflict with federal law.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said the state would study Monday’s ruling in the Arizona case.
“While Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law has similar provisions as Arizona’s law, the laws are not identical,” Bentley said. “We will analyze the Supreme Court opinion to see what potential effect it might have on the provisions of Alabama’s law. State laws on immigration are required because the federal government has refused to enforce its own immigration policies. The bottom line to Alabama’s law is this: if you live and work in the state, you must do so legally. The people of Alabama want a strong immigration law, and I will keep my commitment to uphold and enforce Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law.
“The core of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law remains. The Supreme Court has affirmed that states can determine how they will interpret and enforce their anti-illegal immigration laws. We are pleased that the Court recognizes the important roles of states in enforcing immigration laws.”
While the Alabama immigration law has similarities to Arizona’s, the uncertainty surrounding this state’s still has some residents on edge.
“We are still waiting to see what will happen here,” Nery Vargas said.
“What happened in Arizona is good, but we still do not know what they will do here. It’s almost like you put everything on hold, just waiting to see. But, I think the decision there will help a lot of people in Alabama know what to expect a little more at least.”
