Decision on Arizona immigration law could affect Indiana

Monday’s ruling on Arizona’s hotly contested immigration law before the United States Supreme Court, which struck down several key provisions, could impact immigration policy in Indiana.

In 2011, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed Senate Enrolled Act 590, allowing local law enforcement to detain individuals subject to federal immigration court removal orders.

It would also prohibit the use of foreign consular identification cards as valid ID in the state.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, the National Immigration Law Center and the law firm of Lewis and Kappes, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in May 2011 challenging Indiana’s 2011 immigration policy.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Barker filed a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Indiana’s immigration law following the ACLU’s lawsuit, which says the law authorizes police to make warrantless arrests of individuals based on assumed immigration status.

The groups charge that the Indiana law will lead to racial profiling and trample upon the rights of all Indiana residents, according to the ACLU, which is currently waiting for Barker to issue a judgment on the case.

In the case Arizona v. United States, concerning the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law and whether federal law should preempt a state-level immigration statute, the country’s highest court ruled that Arizona’s 2010 immigration law interfered with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the state could move forward with the most highly contested provision in the law: the “show me your papers” requirement.

This requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

“We are not done in Arizona and will continue the battle against discriminatory laws like these that encourage racial profiling and undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a press release.

“Be it in the courts or in state legislatures, we will aggressively take on these laws and blunt the effects of this miscarriage of justice. When local police can stop and detain anyone they perceive as ‘foreign’ because of their skin color, their accent or their surname, it is a watershed moment for civil rights.”

According to the Supreme Court’s opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, police officers will be prohibited from arresting people on minor immigration charges.

Major provisions struck down by the immigration law include requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, allowing law enforcement to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants and making it a criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek employment.

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court found that the power for making decisions about immigration should be on a federal level, rather than on a state level,” said IU Ph.D. student Juan Eduardo Wolf, who has taught  Immigrant Nations: Latinos and the Politics of Citizenship for the Latino Studies program at the University for the last two years.

“I’m still concerned that, on the fourth issue that they ruled on, the ability to check someone’s immigration status for any detainee, is a little troublesome.”

Wolf, 41, was born in Santiago, Chile, but was raised in Indiana. He said he became a U.S. Citizen in 1991.

Illegal immigration is on the rise in Indiana, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center. Undocumented immigrants constitute an estimated 1.9 percent of Indiana’s population and about 2.5 percent of the state’s work force, according to the report, ranking the state 31st in the country.

Aside from Indiana, four other states have laws on the books modeled after the provisions implemented in Arizona, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah. The ACLU and other civil rights groups have also filed lawsuits challenging the policies in each of these states.

The State of Indiana was one of 15 states to sign an amicus brief authored by the State of Michigan that was filed in February in support of the State of Arizona, according to a press release from the Indiana Attorney General’s Office.

The office is currently analyzing the Supreme Court’s ruling to determine the future of Indiana’s immigration law, according to the release.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision provides valuable guidance to Indiana and other states in the proper role we serve in cooperation with the federal government in enforcing immigration laws,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in the release.

“The failure of Congress to reform our immigration statutes has put states in the difficult position of seeking this guidance from the judicial branch.”

Following review, Zoeller said his office will advise the state legislature of any necessary changes to Indiana’s current law.

“We need to start thinking seriously about what it means to be an American and who that population should entail,” Wolf said.

“If you are going to be checking the status for someone, you’re going to have to be doing that for everyone alike, and you’re going to have to put in time, effort and money.”