Supreme Court’s Immigration Decision
Creates More Questions Than It Answers.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. United States, a closely watched case in which the federal government challenged Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070.The decision and its impact has since been dissected in both legal and media circles.
Can “show me your papers” laws like Section 2B be implemented without racial profiling? What aspects of copycat laws now subject to constitutional challenges in states like Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah and Indiana will survive post-Arizona? And, in particular, how free are states and local jurisdictions across the country to choose a different path?
The Constitution Project(TCP) has assembled a new Immigration Committee that includes members with widely divergent views and experiences who are eager to heed Justice Kennedy’s call. Although TCP has already made a few forays into immigration policy — calling for reform of both the immigration detention system and the ways in which we use immigration law as a counterterrorism tool — it is clearly an area where TCP’s approach to assembling a panel of issue experts from across the ideological spectrum, then asking them to develop bipartisan, consensus-based solutions to tough constitutional questions, can be more fruitfully brought to bear. written by Ginny Sloan for the Huffington Post.
This editorial was co-authored with Scott Roehm, Policy Counsel to the Immigration Committee at The Constitution Project.
If you have any immigration questions. Please contact Stephen K. Tills Esq. at 716-662-5080 an AILA member practicing Immigration Law in Western New York. www.tillsvisalaw.com