view counter
Reacting To Arizona
In Supreme Court’s immigration ruling, Jewish groups see progress but have concerns.
Photo Galleria: 
Washington — Most Jewish groups who have weighed in on Arizona’s controversial immigration law saw progress in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to repeal three of the law’s four parts, but had concerns that law enforcement officials would still be allowed to check the legal immigration status of people they detain. The high court on Monday invalidated the provisions authorizing police to arrest illegal immigrants without warrant if there was probable cause that they committed an offense rendering them eligible for deportation; making it an Arizona state crime if immigrants did not carry registration papers or some sort of government identification; and forbidding immigrants unauthorized to work in the country to apply, solicit or perform work. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was among the groups that welcomed the repeals but had reservations with the court’s decision. “Though we view the positive part of this ruling as another step in the advancement of immigrant rights — forwarded recently by President [Barack] Obama’s executive order halting deportations of Dream Act-eligible individuals — we remain extremely concerned about the potential for racial profiling as a result of today’s decision,” Mark Hetfield, the interim president and CEO of HIAS, said in a news statement. The law, passed in April 2010, was meant primarily to deal with illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, according to proponents of the measure at the time of its passage. They also noted that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer had issued an executive order establishing a training program on how to avoid racial profiling when implementing the new rules. In April, HIAS coordinated a letter to Brewer, a Republican, and also joined more than 100 other faith-based organizations and civil rights groups in submitting an amicus brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down Arizona’s law. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman and the group’s national chair, Robert Sugarman, in a news statement called the ruling a “mixed outcome.” “One of our primary concerns has been that Arizona’s law would exacerbate fear in immigrant communities and, in particular, make victims and witnesses of hate crimes reluctant to speak with police,” they wrote. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, noted in a statement that RAC welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn most provisions in the law, but called on Arizona to urge caution on the remaining part. “We urge Arizona and the lower courts to endorse the principle that all women, men and children deserve equal protection under the law, as appearance offers no grounds on which to assume the legal status of an individual,” Rabbi Saperstein wrote. “Engaging in racial profiling only jeopardizes the safety of entire communities, as members of immigrant communities fearful of being profiled are discouraged from cooperating with law enforcement on issues.” Nancy Kaufman, the CEO of the National Council for Jewish Women, wrote in a news statement that the high court’s ruling “is a welcome step toward ending the efforts by state legislatures to superimpose their own vindictive legislative regime on federal immigration law.” 

Last Update:

07/16/2012 - 18:57
ADL, Arizona, immigration, RAC, The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
The Jewish Week App -- Now Available!
view counter


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

This article is a toxic attack on our system of government which is a government of law and not of men.
Our elected national legislature has enacted laws governing immigration. And now, the president and his appointed minions have chosen to disregard this legislation because they disagree with it. This is unconstitutional.
But, in a larger sense, if we don't control immigration we lose control of out entire system of governing.
I know that many Jews have sympathy for those who desperately want to come here, as did our own forebears. (And as I and my family did to leave Poland when the Nazis attacked).
But this sympathy cannot override the rule of law, nor of the govenment's ability to control immigration.

view counter