Author: Bryce Ashby

Last month’s rulings on immigration reform and health care by the United States Supreme Court are a compelling reminder of what’s at stake in November: “It’s the court, stupid!” This should be the rallying cry for anyone who thinks that this November’s election does not matter.

In both rulings, a narrow majority authored opinions that will influence the contour and direction of American society for a generation or two. How Arizona v. United States came before the Supreme Court and the ultimate decision are useful and instructive when considering the upcoming election.

It is clear that millions of people in America are frustrated with the economic stagnation that has gripped the nation since the great recession of 2007-’08 and have been searching for someone to blame. Xenophobes and nationalists among us seized the opportunity and declared war on immigrants. Arizona led the way with a draconian anti-immigration law that permitted states to demand “papers” if they suspected an individual was undocumented; imposed a state criminal penalty on individuals who could not produce papers; allowed states to arrest individuals without a warrant if they believed they were deportable; and created a criminal penalty for anyone who sought or accepted work without authorization.

These provisions and the Arizona law served as a model for a number of other states, including Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Given the fear inspired by the Arizona law and its proliferation in other states, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder filed suit to enjoin Arizona’s implementation of the law. The department of justice objected to the law on fundamental principles of fairness and constitutionality and with a clear understanding that “common sense” should be applied when drafting and implementing laws. This lawsuit started the case on the path to the Supreme Court and the Obama White House challenge to the state of Arizona in defense of the rights of human beings — citizens and undocumented immigrants alike.

A Romney White House, we know from Governor Romney’s own words, would never have engaged this case, allowing a clear attack on immigrant communities to stand.

After argument at the court, a 5-3 majority — Justice Kagan recused herself from consideration — held that three of the four provisions in question were unconstitutional as they were preempted by federal law. The only provision that survived was the so-called show-me-your-papers provision, but the elimination of any state criminal penalty for failing to produce such papers and Justice Kennedy’s open invitation for future challenges to its constitutionality suggest that this provision will have little practical or lasting effect.

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court currently has four members who are septuagenarians, the next president will likely have the opportunity to nominate at least two new Supreme Court justices. Since the early-19th-century Marbury v. Madison case, the court has served as guarantor of the fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution. The court’s role as protector of the minority from the whims of the majority is even more critical in these economically challenging and politically divisive times.

Although the Arizona law was popular there and has been imitated in other states, a majority of the court ensured that our fundamental rights were not overrun by mob thinking. Interpreting, upholding, and defending the fundamental principles of our founding documents is the work of the court, but their work is not always clearly defined and rights that are “granted” can be taken away. As Justice Scalia’s acerbic dissenting statement made clear, partisan politics are indeed a factor in the judicial process and weigh heavily on those nine who currently occupy the bench.

Thus, with last month’s pivotal opinions, the court presented the nation with two major rulings, and in the Arizona case, the court pulled the nation back from its own partisan excesses, prevailed against the legal thinking of the dissenters, and forced us all to refocus on our better angels.

The Supreme Court matters, and since we cannot vote for SCOTUS justices — only for the president who nominates them — so does this election.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board member at Latino Memphis, Inc. Michael J. LaRosa is an associate professor of history at Rhodes College.

President Obama’s inability to pass much-needed comprehensive immigration reform could cost him the 2012 election. Though recent news of a rebounding economy, coupled with Republican Party infighting, suggests an alternate narrative, the Hispanic vote is neither uniform nor clearly aligned with the Democratic Party. If Hispanics fail to show up in support of the president in four key swing states — Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado — the election could go to the Republican candidate, likely to be former Governor Mitt Romney.

Time magazine kicked off the topic of Hispanic electoral power with its March 5th cover story, “Yo Decido,” written by journalist Michael Scherer. The author noted demographic trends that favor Hispanic predominance in certain places in the nation, and last week, it was widely reported in the U.S. media that about one in six Americans are Hispanic. Additionally, one in six workers in the U.S. is Hispanic, and most Hispanics live in the U.S. legally. They are fully integrated into communities. There is a prevailing assumption that, because a majority of Hispanics are Catholic, they should be naturally allied with more conservative candidates — particularly the two Roman Catholics still in the Republican race as of this writing, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

While the Republicans appear to have learned from some earlier egregious mistakes, like former candidate Herman Cain’s jocular comment about electrifying the fence between the U.S. and Mexico, they seem to have a collective tin ear when it comes to Hispanic culture, issues, voting patterns, and history. They don’t seem to understand the importance of Hispanics among us, and, surprisingly, they don’t seem to really care.

Romney is hardly progressive or nuanced when it comes to Hispanic issues. He does not support the critically important Dream Act — which would allow young people who arrived in the U.S. as children (generally in the arms of their parents) to earn an education in America beyond high school. Common sense would suggest that we support a policy whereby our nation, struggling to compete in an increasingly technical, global environment, would support the education of young people who want to stay in the U.S., study, and contribute to the social and economic development of the nation. 

Romney wants to talk economics while ignoring the politically complicated and nuanced issue of immigration reform. So recently he began reaching out to Hispanics by telling them that overall economic recovery is their best hope and that his policies — not President Obama’s — are most likely to improve the economy, a claim based on political rhetoric more than measurable reality.

But recently released data undermines Romney’s claims. According to data from the American Immigration Council, if the United States government passed comprehensive immigration reform (something Romney rejects), an estimated $4.5-to-$5.4 billion increase in overall tax revenues would accumulate during the first three years, as workers moved out of the shadows and into more reliable, better-paying jobs.  

Reform would generate a net growth to GDP of approximately $1.5 trillion during the first 10 years of implementation ($1.2 trillion in added consumption, $256 billion in new investment). Thus, immigration reform may be a key component to lifting our sluggish economy. Nevertheless, an angry, xenophobic fog has settled in over our land, leading to state-supported anti-immigration legislation that has disrupted local economies and has led to great social tensions and an ongoing legal challenge by the federal Department of Justice against the state of Arizona.

President Obama must continue to push for the creation of a pathway to comprehensive immigration reform and for passage of the Dream Act. By investing political capital in this project, the president can work to ensure that his presidency lasts through 2016 while simultaneously making a significant contribution to our economic growth and solving one of our most pressing social dilemmas: the plight of the undocumented among us.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board member at Latino Memphis. Michael J. LaRosa teaches history at Rhodes College.