2Center or American Progress | Arizona’s ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: What’s at Stake?
Deparmen o Jusice also led sui o block he law, arguing ha he naion musspeak wih one voice when i comes o immigraion policy and he reamen o oreignnaionals presen in he Unied Saes.Specically, he Deparmen o Jusice called or he cours o enjoin our provisionso he Arizona law ha unconsiuionally inerere wih ederal immigraion policy:(1) Te requiremen ha all residens o he sae, ciizens and immigrans alike, “show heir papers” i a law enorcemen agen who sops hem has a “reasonable suspicion” o believe ha hey are undocumened; (2) Te provision making i a sae crime i a per-son canno produce he proo o heir immigraion saus; (3) Te provision making i asae crime or a person o seek work or be employed wihou he required papers; and(4) Te provision auhorizing law enorcemen o arres an individual wihou a warrani he ocer believes hey have commited any oense, in Arizona or anywhere else, ha would make hem deporable.Te ederal disric and appeals cours agreed wih he Deparmen o Jusice ha heseprovisions in Arizona’s new law were pre-emped by ederal law and hereore wereemporarily barred rom going ino eec.
Arizona ough hese cour decisions andappealed hem o he U.S. Supreme Cour, which will hear oral argumens in he case on April 25, 2012.Meanwhile, oher saes—including Alabama, Georgia, Souh Carolina, and Uah—ol-lowed Arizona’s lead and passed “copyca” legislaion. Alhough ederal cours havepu mos o hose measures on hold emporarily, he disric judge in he Alabama caseallowed some exreme measures o ha sae’s law, H.B. 56, o iniially go ino eec,including a provision ha wen beyond Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and required schoolchildreno veriy heir immigraion saus a enrollmen.
Tese ani-immigran laws, even he ones currenly blocked by he cours, have creaeda climae o ear and division wihin hese saes and have riggered a cascade o coun-erproducive real-world consequences. Some immigran amilies decided o leave hesesaes alogeher and move o oher, more welcoming saes raher han accep his sae-sponsored marginalizaion. As a resul, whole secors o hese saes’ economies havesuered irreparable harm as immigran workers eiher sayed home or le he sae and were no longer available o harves crops or perorm oher needed services. Companiesand organizaions ha didn’ wan heir own members o ace hese draconian laws wihdrew heir businesses rom hese saes, urher exending and deepening he nega-ive economic impac o hese ill-conceived new immigraion laws.
Te signican social and economic harm ha has already fowed rom he enacmen o hese laws underscores he poenially monumenal imporance o he Supreme Cour’sdecision in he Arizona case. Wha is a sake is no merely a echnical and esoeric legalargumen. Te ruling in his case could have proound implicaions, no only or he