Kris Crossing The SCOTUS’ S.B. 1070 Decision

The fact that both sides in the immigration-enforcement debate are claiming victory in SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES attest to just how whishy-washy the split decision today out of the SCOTUS was.

The most informative by far is “Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the Arizona statute, as well as similar laws in other states.”

PBS’s GWEN IFILL asked Kobach whether “this stop-and-check provision that was upheld was at the heart of the law.”

KRIS KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State: “Yes, I think so. It is certainly part of the law that has the greatest scope, so when Arizona claims victory, I think that’s correct. It’s a qualified victory for the states, the part that has the greatest reach.

Put it this way. That provision will kick in, in thousands of law enforcement stops every day throughout the state of Arizona. So it has a great reach. The other provisions are less significant, for example, the part criminalizing the illegal seeking of work.

That’s only going to be relevant if a county launches an investigation of a particular employer, and then they discover certain unauthorized aliens who have broken that law. So, it’s much narrower. The big one was the one that was upheld today. And I think that’s going to give a green light to other states who — some states have already copied that provision of Arizona law.

And there are additional states that probably will try to do so in January in 2013, when the legislative sessions begin again.”

ABOUT the alleged racial profiling in the law, Kobach said this:

… the law in four different sections expressly prohibits application of the law differently to a person whether based on his skin color, his national origin or his ethnicity. The law forbids racial profiling.
The Department of Justice knew that that argument would get nowhere in a facial challenge. And if in the future you had a bad apple police officer who was trying to racially profile, he would be breaking SB-1070, he would be breaking the law. And so his actions wouldn’t in any way indict the law. The bottom line is…

GWEN IFILL: …What is it — how do you walk the line that the court laid out today, which is a law that can — that complements federal law, but doesn’t supersede it, as the court said so much of the Arizona statute did?

KRIS KOBACH: “Well, we now have some clear guidance from the court. We know that the arrest provisions of Section 2-B, the main provision we have been talking about here, those are perfectly fine. We have got a number of other states that have already implemented them and are in circuit courts right now.

There are a bunch of states waiting in the wings to do the same thing. Those can move ahead. If a state wanted to do the criminalization of seeking employment, the Supreme Court has said no.

And one other thing that is really important about this opinion, the court clarified what I have been arguing all along and I think most people who follow this specific area of preemption law know. And that is there have always been windows of opportunity where states can act as long as those actions are consistent with federal law.

And the court reiterated that today. They said, in our federal system, the courts can take certain steps to discourage illegal immigration and communicate and assist with the federal government, assist the federal government in enforcing our immigration laws. And the court reiterated that today. So, I think you’re going to see states continuing to take reasonable steps to try to rebuild the rule of law. …

…This law simply is about enforcing the rule of law and allowing state and local governments to provide a reasonable amount of help when they’re in the course of their normal duties. There is no disrespect for a person’s humanity by simply saying we have certain laws in this country and we simply want to inquire as to whether you’re here legally.

As far as diminishing states’ rights, there is one aspect that I would certainly concede in the majority opinion that says — what the court did is they looked at Congress acting in 1986 when Congress criminalized the employment of an unauthorized aliens, when you have a large number of unauthorized aliens or you have a pattern and practice.

And the court said, well, we’re going to read into what Congress did. We’re going to look at what Congress didn’t do. And we’re going to read into Congress’ decision not to criminalize the employment — the actions by the employee. And we’re going to say that inaction by Congress preempts the states as well.

I think that was a troubling part of the opinion because, you know, when you have inaction by Congress, 99 percent of the time they’re not passing something, and you start drawing conclusions from congressional inaction, then you potentially can displace the states in a way that the framers never intended. …

…certainly Congress can and should take certain actions.

I think Congress should, for example, follow Arizona’s 2007 law that was upheld by the Supreme Court last year requiring E-Verify for all employers in the state. We should have that nationally.

But on the other hand, I would say there are a lot of things we could do to improve our enforcement of the laws. People always say, the system is broken, the system is broken. Well, not exactly.

Some aspects are, but there are plenty parts of the system that work just fine, but we lack an executive branch right now that wants to enforce the law.”