The ruling has finally come, and it came with tremendous amounts of misinformation. It is not secret that the politicians and media of the contemporary era thrive on exceptionalism. Yesterday was an extraordinary example of this phenomenon. In the hours following the ruling, it was nearly impossible for most of us to determine what the court’s ruling meant since both sides were claiming victory. However, after what has seemed like an eternity for those of us who have been impatiently awaiting this ruling, I can say with no doubt in my heart and in my mind that the wait was worth it. The ruling was an irrefutable victory for Hispanics, Latinos, and immigrants from all over the world living in the United States.
Now that the dust has cleared, let me explain what the ruling means. Three of the four provisions were completely struck down by the high court. First, the provision requesting the arrest without warrant of people suspected of being deported was struck down by a 5-3 margin. Second, the provision making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to seek or hold jobs was beat down by the same margin. And third, by a 6-2 margin, it was declared that it will not be a crime for an immigrant to fail to register with the federal government. These rulings were clear to most of us. The ruling on the fourth provision is where all the hysteria and misinformation came from. Let us clear the smoke.
The “show me you papers” provision was not held up in the manner in which it was meant to function as written in the bill. It was held up in a way that “leaves it hanging by a legal thread.” Yes, the police will be required to determine the immigration status of people they stop or arrest if they suspect that they are in the United States without the proper documentation. However, the questioning will be done merely for “report” purposes. Let me be clear, the police will not be able to arrest or detain someone any longer even if they have determined that the individual under questioning or arrest does not have the proper documentation to be in the country. This will still be left up to the federal government. Furthermore, the court was clear: the questioning cannot be justified or even take place if the suspicion is merely based on race, color, or national origin: a victory for the civil rights movement.
The court did not specify what could be considered reasonable suspicion. Many experts say that this is because since the law has not even begun to be enacted, it is hard to determine what would really fall within these confines. However, they believe that once the law goes into effect, those “reasonable suspicions” will be challenged in courts, and it is likely that this fourth provision will essentially be virtually struck down in its entirety.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said that “the heart of the bill was upheld.” She is right, the heart of the law is still beating, but it is beating on life support. More importantly, the clock is ticking on the machine, and the plug will soon be pulled.
