Scalia Cites Slavery-Era Laws in Immigration Dissent

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmasker/4668514068/sizes/m/in/photostream/" target="_blank">Flickr/The Higgs Boson</a>


Justice Antonin Scalia’s angry dissent in the case over Arizona’s harsh immigration law is filled to the brim with partisan bile and dismissive rhetoric directed at his colleagues on the court. Scalia directly criticizes Obama’s immigration policy of deferring deportation for potential DREAM Act beneficiaries and describes Arizonans as being “under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy.” Scalia also suggests that “we should cease referring to [Arizona] as a sovereign State.”

But even among these eyebrow-raising passage is one section that stood out from the rest. Explaining why he would have let the Arizona law stand in its entirety, rather than invalidating most of its provisions as the court majority ultimately did, Scalia runs through some of the history of immigration law in the US and cites slavery-era statutes meant to restrict the movement of free blacks across state lines.

Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted crimi­nals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only pro­vided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.

While this might seem like an odd way to support his argument, Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law, warns against reading too much into it. “I think what he’s getting at is that there was a time when states had authority over this issue,” Winkler says, “but that was when Congress hadn’t enacted significant regulation on immigration.” 

With the exception of one provision, which Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion implied could be invalidated in the future, the high court agreed that the states don’t get to legislate where the federal government has already set immigration policy. Or as Winkler appropriately puts it, given the Obama administration’s record of aggressive enforcement of immigration law, “the federal government is the only one authorized to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants.”

MORE HARD-HITTING JOURNALISM

In 2014, before Donald Trump announced his run for president, we knew we had to do something different to address the fundamental challenge facing journalism: how hard-hitting reporting that can hold the powerful accountable can survive as the bottom falls out of the news business.

Being a nonprofit, we started planning The Moment for Mother Jones, a special campaign to raise $25 million for key investments to make Mother Jones the strongest watchdog it can be. Five years later, readers have stepped up and contributed an astonishing $23 million in gifts and future pledges. This is an incredible statement from the Mother Jones community in the face of huge threats—both economic and political—against the free press.

Read more about The Moment and see what we've been able to accomplish thanks to readers' incredible generosity so far, and please join them today. Your gift will be matched dollar for dollar, up to $500,000 total, during this critical moment for journalism.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.