US Media Hold Split Views of Ruling on Arizona Immigration Law
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down three of the four provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law because they violated the federal government’s exclusive power to set immigration policy. The Supreme Court upheld one provision: Arizona police officers cannot release any detained or arrested suspects before checking their legal status with the federal government. This is equivalent to recognizing the “papers please” provision, which allows Arizona police officers to stop and demand immigration papers — green cards, driver’s licenses or foreign passports — from anyone whom the officers [reasonably] suspect to be in the U.S. illegally.
It is worth noting that there were split reports among the American media: Some media reported that the Supreme Court’s ruling was “against” the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law, while others believed just the opposite. This phenomenon sufficiently reflected the interpretation of the ruling by and attitudes toward illegal immigration from all sectors of American society. One side argues that the ruling voided local laws that would override federal law, which is a victory; another side believes that the provision upheld by the Supreme Court is the key provision. Although one side’s understanding of victory is a far cry from that of the other, the general opinion holds that the Supreme Court's ruling will greatly affect the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
People who are concerned about the U.S. presidential election know that the overriding issue in this election is the economy. However, the U.S. economic recovery is weak and pessimistic when affected by the European debt crisis. In a recent poll, Americans believe that, regardless of whether Republican candidate Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama is elected, neither will be capable of improving the U.S. economy. Therefore, at this stage, no matter how hard the two parties promote their own economic ideas, voters now feel burnt out or even more pessimistic. Under such circumstances, social issues once again become a battlefield for both sides; the immigration issue is one with big influence.
According to some reports, the majority of illegal immigrants in the United States are Latinos; thus, the deportation of illegal immigrants will have a direct impact on voting choices by the 40 million Latino voters in the U.S. Some media even say, “Win over the Latinos, win the world.”* Currently, two-thirds of Latino voters support President Obama. Ten days earlier, Obama enacted an executive order to stop the repatriation of undocumented young people whose situations are in line with specified conditions; up to 80 million people, with the majority being Latinos, could benefit from the order. The public generally considers that Obama has made a killer move to win re-election.
Obama has always opposed the Arizona immigration bill, and thinks it is the most severe immigration law in history. After the Supreme Court declared the ruling, Obama issued a statement expressing his satisfaction with the ruling; then he pointed to Congress’ inaction and demanded the legislative bodies to take immediate action to promote the reform of immigration laws. But at the same time, he expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s support for Arizona police officers to stop anyone they suspect of staying in the U.S. illegally. The ruling may promote racial discrimination of the Latino population, which would lead to more serious social problems.
In contrast, the Republican Party has a stricter attitude when dealing with the problems of illegal immigrants. They believe that Arizona and other states introduced their own laws because of the Obama administration’s ineffective combat against illegal immigration. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that when the federal government abandons its duty, state governments have the responsibility and authority to ensure border security. At present, several states in the U.S. have issued similar immigration laws; some non-border states are also considering the introduction of similar legislation. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona’s immigration law will have a profound impact upon other states’ immigration laws.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
It is worth noting that there were split reports among the American media: Some media reported that the Supreme Court’s ruling was “against” the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law, while others believed just the opposite. This phenomenon sufficiently reflected the interpretation of the ruling by and attitudes toward illegal immigration from all sectors of American society. One side argues that the ruling voided local laws that would override federal law, which is a victory; another side believes that the provision upheld by the Supreme Court is the key provision. Although one side’s understanding of victory is a far cry from that of the other, the general opinion holds that the Supreme Court's ruling will greatly affect the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
People who are concerned about the U.S. presidential election know that the overriding issue in this election is the economy. However, the U.S. economic recovery is weak and pessimistic when affected by the European debt crisis. In a recent poll, Americans believe that, regardless of whether Republican candidate Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama is elected, neither will be capable of improving the U.S. economy. Therefore, at this stage, no matter how hard the two parties promote their own economic ideas, voters now feel burnt out or even more pessimistic. Under such circumstances, social issues once again become a battlefield for both sides; the immigration issue is one with big influence.
According to some reports, the majority of illegal immigrants in the United States are Latinos; thus, the deportation of illegal immigrants will have a direct impact on voting choices by the 40 million Latino voters in the U.S. Some media even say, “Win over the Latinos, win the world.”* Currently, two-thirds of Latino voters support President Obama. Ten days earlier, Obama enacted an executive order to stop the repatriation of undocumented young people whose situations are in line with specified conditions; up to 80 million people, with the majority being Latinos, could benefit from the order. The public generally considers that Obama has made a killer move to win re-election.
Obama has always opposed the Arizona immigration bill, and thinks it is the most severe immigration law in history. After the Supreme Court declared the ruling, Obama issued a statement expressing his satisfaction with the ruling; then he pointed to Congress’ inaction and demanded the legislative bodies to take immediate action to promote the reform of immigration laws. But at the same time, he expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s support for Arizona police officers to stop anyone they suspect of staying in the U.S. illegally. The ruling may promote racial discrimination of the Latino population, which would lead to more serious social problems.
In contrast, the Republican Party has a stricter attitude when dealing with the problems of illegal immigrants. They believe that Arizona and other states introduced their own laws because of the Obama administration’s ineffective combat against illegal immigration. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that when the federal government abandons its duty, state governments have the responsibility and authority to ensure border security. At present, several states in the U.S. have issued similar immigration laws; some non-border states are also considering the introduction of similar legislation. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona’s immigration law will have a profound impact upon other states’ immigration laws.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
Next article![]( "Romney Uses Ammunition from ‘Obamacare’ Ruling to Shoot Himself in the Foot")
