Anti-Immigrant Movement Dealt Three Major Blows In One Day » ADL Blogs
Perspectives & Information on Contemporary Civil Rights Issues
March 7, 2014 5

Anti-Immigrant Movement Dealt Three Major Blows In One Day

Ear­lier this week, two U.S. Supreme Court orders and a set­tle­ment agree­ment out of South Car­olina dealt major blows to the anti-immigrant movement’s agenda.supreme-court-east-facade

On March 3, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals by the cities of Hazle­ton, Penn­syl­va­nia, and Farm­ers Branch, Texas, let­ting stand lower court rul­ings that had struck down both cities’ anti-immigrant ordi­nances.  Hazle­ton and Farm­ers Branch gained national noto­ri­ety when they passed ordi­nances bar­ring undoc­u­mented immi­grants from rent­ing prop­erty in the towns. 

In both cases, lower courts struck down the ordi­nances as uncon­sti­tu­tional and pre­empted by fed­eral law.  The Supreme Court’s orders deny­ing the appeals requests end the legal bat­tles, which have been ongo­ing since 2006, and secure a per­ma­nent vic­tory for immi­gra­tion and civil rights groups. 

On the same day as the Supreme Court’s orders, South Car­olina offi­cials set­tled a law­suit with immi­grant and civil rights groups over the state’s anti-immigrant laws.  In 2011 South Car­olina passed a law sim­i­lar to Arizona’s SB 1070 that, among other things, required local law enforce­ment to inves­ti­gate people’s immi­gra­tion sta­tus if they had rea­son to believe the per­son was undocumented. 

The pro­vi­sion, com­monly known as “papers please,” effec­tively required local law enforce­ment offi­cers to func­tion as immi­gra­tion enforcers.  In a let­ter sub­mit­ted to the court signed jointly by the Attor­ney Gen­eral and the Solic­i­tor Gen­eral, ear­lier this week South Car­olina agreed that local law enforce­ment would not hold peo­ple purely to deter­mine immi­gra­tion sta­tus.  The let­ter fur­ther con­ceded that the law does not per­mit state and local offi­cials to arrest or hold any­one believed to be undoc­u­mented “for any pur­pose, even to trans­fer the indi­vid­ual to fed­eral custody.”

The Supreme Court orders and South Car­olina set­tle­ment are major defeats for the anti-immigrant move­ment and its “attri­tion through enforce­ment” agenda. In the early to mid-2000s, the move­ment crafted this agenda, also known as “self-deportation.”

The goal was to make life so dif­fi­cult for immi­grants that they would “self-deport” from the city or state and move to another, or ulti­mately back to their coun­try of ori­gin.  Kris Kobach, the Kansas sec­re­tary of state and a lawyer with the Immi­gra­tion Reform Law Insti­tute (IRLI), the legal arm of the extreme anti-immigrant orga­ni­za­tion Fed­er­a­tion for Amer­i­can Immi­gra­tion Reform (FAIR), is the mas­ter­mind behind attri­tion through enforce­ment and one of the lead­ers pro­mot­ing the agenda today. Kobach helped to draft and defend the ordi­nances in Farm­ers Branch, Hazel­ton, and many other cities as well as Arizona’s SB 1070 law.

The Supreme Court orders and South Car­olina set­tle­ment are part of a wider trend of defeat for the anti-immigrant move­ment.   Since the begin­ning of 2013 there has been a major decline in anti-immigrant leg­is­la­tion intro­duced at the state level nation­wide. Pro-immigrant leg­is­la­tion is on the rise and the anti-immigrant move­ment is on the defense, attempt­ing to stop this influx of leg­is­la­tion instead of con­tin­u­ing to draft “attri­tion through enforce­ment” bills. These lat­est devel­op­ments send a clear mes­sage to the anti-immigrant move­ment and state and local leg­is­la­tors that anti-immigrant leg­is­la­tion not only divides com­mu­ni­ties but it does not hold up in court.

  • Jerry Zerg

    ADL’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of their so-called anti-immigration move­ment is a spu­ri­ous and dis­heart­en­ing attempt mis­lead the pub­lic. The ordi­nances were made to pre­vent UNDOCUMENTED immi­grants from rent­ing prop­erty, not law abid­ing immi­grants. ADL should know better.

    • VivaLaMi­gra

      ADL does know bet­ter. Their agenda is to obfus­cate issues and dis­credit oppo­nents. It’s right out of the Alin­ski handbook.

    • Patriot

      You might want to re-read the arti­cle. The arti­cle states “Hazle­ton and Farm­ers Branch gained national noto­ri­ety when they passed ordi­nances bar­ring undoc­u­mented immi­grants from rent­ing prop­erty in the towns.”

  • VivaLaMi­gra

    So, enforc­ing our laws is now “extrem­ist?” If so, I’m proud to be one. I’m an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen and all I want is Equal Pro­tec­tion Under the LAW as guar­an­teed by the 14th Amend­ment. Surely the ADL sup­ports the US Con­sti­tu­tion, doesn’t it? Or, do you pre­fer to pick and choose which laws and rights you defend?

    • Patriot

      Appar­ently, you think the US Supreme Court acts uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally. ADL and other orga­ni­za­tions that opposed the leg­is­la­tion were vin­di­cated by the deci­sion of the court. You may not like it, but the US Supreme Court has been a long time arbiter of what is and is not uncon­sti­tu­tional. The Supreme Court, in refus­ing to hear the appeal, sided with the 5th Dis­trict Court of Appeals, a court with a rep­u­ta­tion for very con­ser­v­a­tive deci­sions, in gen­eral. If you want to lobby your Con­gress mem­ber to change the fed­eral law, which the court ruled super­sedes local ordi­nances, then go for it.