Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles… The conservative majority lifted a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA. The order had barred immigration agents from stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location…
“The majority did not explain its reasoning, as is typical on the court’s emergency docket. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the lower-court judge had gone too far in restricting how Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can carry out brief stops for questioning. ‘The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts,’ he wrote in a concurrence.” AP News
The left opposes the ruling, arguing that it legitimizes racial profiling.
“The core of the Fourth Amendment is that no one can be stopped by the police without reasonable suspicion that he or she has committed a crime… Kavanaugh wrote that ‘[t]he interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law.’…
“This profoundly misunderstands the Fourth Amendment: It protects the right of every person—citizen or non-citizen—to be free from being stopped by the police unless there is at least reasonable suspicion.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, The Contrarian
“Perhaps the silliest line in the opinion comes when Kavanaugh… considers the implications of his reasoning for people who are ‘legally in this country.’ Fortunately, Kavanaugh says, they have no reason to worry: ‘The questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.’…
“Kavanaugh’s assurances… would come as news to Jason Gavidia, a U.S. citizen and plaintiff in this case who was attacked by armed immigration agents after he hesitated while trying to remember the name of the hospital in which he was born. The agents let him go only after Gavidia provided his ID card, which they did not give back…
“It would also come as news to Jorge Viramontes, another U.S. citizen plaintiff, whom agents subjected to four interrogations in nine days, at one point detaining him in a warehouse until they could verify his citizenship.”
Jay Willis, Balls and Strikes
“In [a recent] affirmative action case, [Justice Clarence] Thomas’ concurrence decried ‘the tremendous harm inflicted by sorting individuals on the basis of race’ because ‘all racial stereotypes harm and demean individuals.’…
“How will the court square its decision to let ICE agents snatch people at bus stops or low-wage jobs or simply grab them off the street because of how they look or talk, while banning the consideration of race in college admissions and—almost certainly in the coming months—when divvying up political representation?… The court is forging an America where weighing race can be used to harm minorities, but not to protect them.”
Pema Levy, Mother Jones
The right supports the ruling, arguing that ethnicity is relevant to immigration status.
The right supports the ruling, arguing that ethnicity is relevant to immigration status.
“In most situations, it’s reasonable to demand that law enforcement not take race, ethnicity, or national origin into account in stopping people, unless much more specific factors are involved — e.g., looking for a suspect who fits a particular description or as part of a longer checklist identifying members of a particular criminal organization built around racial/ethnic lines…
“But in the immigration context, national origin is an essential element of the offense. Most American citizens were born here; no illegal immigrants were. As Kavanaugh emphasized, blinding the government to the actual characteristics of the illegal immigrant population of Los Angeles elevates theory over practical reality.”
Dan McLaughlin, National Review
“Several precedents, including U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), have held that race ‘can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.’ Barring immigration officers from considering these facts would amount to forced blindness… but they need evidence of non-citizenship to make an arrest. They can’t simply ‘seize’ and hold American citizens [as Justice Sotomayor alleges]. If ICE agents exceed or abuse this authority, as they sometimes do, there are legal remedies.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Kavanaugh clearly states in his concurrence, ‘To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion.’ But this plain statement did not stop the New York Times from telling readers that the Supreme Court had just endorsed ‘indiscriminate stops based on factors like ethnicity.’…
“Immigration enforcement is a tough job. The Biden administration simply chose not to enforce our nation’s immigration laws at all. As a direct result, our southern borders were flooded with over 5 million illegal immigrants. The electorate chose President Donald Trump in no small part because he promised to do the tough job of enforcing our immigration laws again…
“Federal law enforcement officers are not going to be perfect when enforcing our immigration laws. But we have existing checks in place to restrain their behavior, such as the Federal Tort Claims Act. It is not acceptable for one unelected judge appointed by the Biden administration to take it upon herself to decide that all immigration law enforcement must be stopped.”
Editorial Board, Washington Examiner
