Ruling on Arizona immigration law sparks debate in Iowa

Advocates urge against similar law here; GOP leaders voice support for it

12:15 AM, Jun 26, 2012
Written by
JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD

The U.S. Supreme Court’s split decision Monday that upholds the right of local police to perform roadside immigration checks opens the door for Iowa to adopt the provision of Arizona’s immigration law that’s most reviled by critics.

The high court, however, struck down other parts of the Arizona law, signaling that state legislation could not usurp federal immigration laws.

Immigrant advocates rallied in the shadow of the Iowa Capitol on Monday to urge legislators to reject any attempt to pass similar legislation here, while two central Iowa sheriffs said the law would be too expensive to implement and a waste of taxpayer money.

The comments came as two of Iowa’s top Republicans voiced their support for allowing local police to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

That notion angers immigrant advocates.

“I think we need to send a message to the Iowa Legislature that we don’t want any kind of law in Iowa like this,” said Sandra Sanchez of the American Friends Service Committee in Des Moines. “I think that Iowans have more common sense, and Iowans are fair people in their hearts.”

Gov. Terry Branstad, though, told reporters he sees no problem with asking for identification during a police stop.

“You know, if I get stopped, they’re going to ask for my driver’s license,” Branstad said. “I don’t think it’s inappropriate to ask somebody for identification of who they are, whether it’s a driver’s license or whether it’s other legal papers.”

U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a Republican who’s a leading voice nationally in advocating for more restrictive immigration policies, said he’s disappointed the decision will make it difficult for states to pass broad anti-illegal immigration laws without intervention from Congress.

Nonetheless, King said he expects some states to move forward with the legislation allowed under the court’s decision, and hopes Iowa will follow suit.

“I think that Iowa could, and likely should, pass the provision that stands,” King said in an interview with The Des Moines Register. “I’m pleased that the most important component was, at least for now, upheld by the Supreme Court.”

The court’s decision to uphold the most controversial portion of the law serves as an opening act in the legal battle over what to do with an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country, critics and supporters of the law said.

Justices ruled the “show me your papers” provision can remain on the books because it doesn’t infringe on the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law.

The limited ruling means lawsuits that claim the rule will lead to discrimination and an invasion of privacy will be allowed to move forward, a point that muted the reaction of many in Iowa.

The decision could open the door for more states to move forward with similar legislation, experts said. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws shortly after Arizona’s took effect two years ago.

The ruling comes less than two weeks after President Barack Obama, who is gearing up for re-election this November, announced a federal policy that will end the threat of deportation for young, undocumented immigrants with clean criminal records.

Immigrant advocates applauded the court for striking down parts of the Arizona law that required immigrants to carry immigration papers, allowed the arrest of illegal immigrants without a warrant and made it illegal for an undocumented immigrant to work or seek work.

However, Mireya Ramirez, 38, a mother of four from Des Moines, said allowing the “show me your papers” provision to stand means her family and friends will continue to live under a cloud of uncertainty.

“We want a sense of peace and security. We don’t have that yet,” she said.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer hailed that same decision as a victory for the rule of law.

Polk County Sheriff Bill McCarthy, however, called the rule a scare tactic that would strain local government resources and have little impact on illegal immigrants living in the country.

“The ‘show me your papers’ position several states have adopted is nothing more than a device to appease the far right and scare and alienate many in the immigrant communities,” said McCarthy, a Democrat.

Marshall County Sheriff Ted Kamatchus, a Republican, joined McCarthy in raising concerns about local jails filling to capacity because the federal government rarely deports immigrants in a timely manner. Within his county is the city of Marshalltown, where nearly one-quarter of the 27,500 residents are Hispanic.

Like Polk County, Kamatchus said his department participates in the federal Secure Communities program, which requires the fingerprints of all people booked into a local jail to be checked against a federal immigration database. Taking immigration enforcement beyond that, though, would be counterproductive, he said.

“If we run across people and we do checks and there’s a detention order, I’m all for that,” he said. “But as far as randomly going around checking papers, I don’t see putting the man hours in and justifying it to the taxpayers.”

Victor Torres, 48, a Mexico native, said allowing law enforcement to check for immigration papers on mere suspicion of someone being an illegal immigrant will have a negative impact on communities with large immigrant populations. People there already show a reluctance to report crimes because they don’t trust the authorities.

“What we need is immigration reform that is fair, not these kinds of laws,” said Torres, who lives with his wife and two children in Des Moines. “As in Arizona, it opens the door to racial profiling and discrimination.”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...ks-debate-Iowa