Forum: The court and immigration laws

Forums

Related Photos

Ryann Embury

January 10, 2012

By Ryann S. Embury ---- The Record Eagle Tue Jan 31, 2012, 01:24 PM EST

During this election year, the topic of illegal immigration is front and center -- at least in the docket at the United States Supreme Court. On Dec. 12, 2011, the Supreme Court announced that it would decide whether Arizona could continue to enforce and enact its own immigration laws, despite the Obama administration's fierce objections.

The outcome of the case is sure to be huge -- for immigrants, for individual state's rights, and for -- quite possibly -- the president. Above the societal impact, the political implications of this case might very well dictate an election.

As a lawyer and former prosecutor for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Ariz., I have experienced the effect of illegal immigration, upon the state of Arizona, its citizens, as well as the illegal immigrant.

As an immigrant myself (Canada), I have first-hand knowledge of just how important the question of illegal immigration is in this country. And there is little doubt that the Supreme Court's decision in this landmark case is as tantamount as the health care debate, particularly because it will attempt to settle a dispute between a single state enacting and enforcing its own immigration laws and the Obama administration. The decision, while undoubtedly set to impact millions of immigrants, will assuredly impact the presidential run.

One key component of Arizona's tough immigration statute, and perhaps the most controversial, is its profiling aspect. Under the statute, law enforcement officials are permitted to question the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested if the official has reason to believe that the person might be an illegal immigrant.

Compare, for example, a Hispanic person with a Canadian. Is a police officer likely to question a Caucasian about his/her immigration status? Contrast that scenario with a Latino.

The answer is obvious, which puts the question of racial profiling at the forefront of the Supreme Court's decision.

But this is just one of the challenges the Supreme Court faces in deciding the case.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether individual states can enact such sweeping laws despite the traditional and exclusive role of the federal government in enacting and enforcing immigration laws.

Arizona believes individual states should have a say in and right to enact/enforce their own immigration laws. Indeed, Arizona is doing just that, despite the Obama administration's objections and the exclusive role of the federal government in immigration.

The question of whether individual states should be permitted to impose their own immigration laws comes at a critical time in our history.

That question now rests with the Supreme Court, and it will be resolved during an election year. With the allegations of "unconstitutional policing" and Arizona's hard-line position of enforcing tough immigration laws, we are sure to see a fierce debate and a lasting pronouncement.

About the author: Ryann Embury is a partner at the Traverse City law firm Miller Embury, PLLC and and aformer prosecutor for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Ariz.

About the forum: The forum is a periodic column of opinion written by Record-Eagle readers in their areas of interest or expertise. Submissions of 500 words or less may be made by emailing letters@record-eagle.com. Please include biographical information and a photo.