The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

71° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


    SB 1070 ruling spurs mixed reactions

    The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Arizona’s immigration bill conflicted with federal law. However, one key provision of the bill nicknamed the “papers please” or the “fast and furious” section §2(B) was upheld. The following are opinions and reactions to the court’s verdict on SB1070:

    “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”
    – President Barack Obama

    “So, today is a day when the key component of our effort to protect the citizens of Arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration, in a balanced and constitutional way, has UNANIMOUSLY been vindicated by the highest court in the land. The heart of SB1070 has been proven to be constitutional. Arizona’s and every other states’ inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld.”
    – Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

    “There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.”
    – Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

    “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty, not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.”

    – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

    “Even before the Arizona Legislature enacted §2(B), federal law permitted state and local officers to make such inquiries. The law instructs officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to investigate immigration status, and this language is best understood as incorporating the Fourth Amendment’s standard of reasonableness.”
    – Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

    “We will continue to advocate for the people of Arizona in the face of this law. We are a community that spans across international borders. No one’s humanity should cease to be recognized at the border.“

    – Executive Director Juanita Molina of Border Action Network

    “This decision is still a setback to civil rights in America, but it is not a defeat. The civil rights and immigrant rights communities will continue to fight against laws like S.B. 1070 in the courts, in state legislatures and in Congress.”
    – Statement from the Border Action Network

    “As a proud supporter of SB1070, I was glad to see the Court uphold the most important aspect of the law—allowing local law enforcement to question someone’s immigration status during a lawful stop. I was saddened to see the Court strike down several other provisions of the law that made certain immigration-related activities state crimes.”
    – Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen

    More to Discover
    Activate Search