Mapping the Battle Over Arizona-Style Immigration Laws

As MoJo‘s Adam Serwer reported Monday, the Supreme Court voted down three of four provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070, but allowed one harsh measure to stand: The court upheld (for now)* section 2B, which requires law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of suspects during lawful stops, detentions, or arrests. Along with Arizona, five other states—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—have similar “show your papers” laws on the books. Meanwhile, from 2010 to 2011, 30 state legislatures rejected bills modeled after Arizona’s.

This year, with the uncertainty surrounding the impending court decision and with legislators unwilling to deal with the type of fallout seen in Alabama, only five states introduced such legislation: Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island (PDF), and West Virginia. The Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia bills failed; Kansas’ regular legislative session has ended without action on the bill, and the same outcome appears likely in Rhode Island, whose session is over July 2. (Four of the five states—Rhode Island excluded—had already tried and failed to pass similar bills previously.)

Following Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Nebraska state Sen. Charlie Janssen, sponsor of a 2011 Arizona-style bill, told the Associated Press he was unsure if he’d repropose it moving forward, saying, “I certainly wouldn’t bring something back that the US Supreme Court just shot down.” But Mississippi Republican state Rep. Becky Currie, cosponsor of the state’s HB 488 (PDF), is undaunted. She told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that the ruling merely would affect how she wrote future anti-immigrant legislation. Currie also told the paper that she expected a future Mississippi immigration bill to have a “self-deportation effect“: “As soon as the bill passes, illegal immigrants will leave the state.”

Correction: This article initially claimed that the Supreme Court upheld section 2B, which is incorrect. Read Serwer’s Tuesday post to see why.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.