[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E470-E471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SB 1070 AMICUS BRIEF

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 28, 2012

  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, on April 25, 2012, the United 
States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. 
Arizona, a case that could determine whether, through the guise of 
immigration enforcement, states can once again legally sanction 
discriminatory practices. Sixty-eight Members of Congress, including 
myself, have filed a brief to inform the Supreme Court that we believe 
that Arizona, through SB 1070, has unconstitutionally stepped upon 
exclusively federal domain. I stand before you today to explain why 
many of the leading Members of this Chamber have decided to take a 
stand against this law.
  Arizona's SB 1070, like other state laws inspired by SB 1070, opens 
the gates for legally sanctioned racial profiling. If allowed to go 
into effect, Arizonans who look or sound ``foreign'' could be asked for 
their papers at any given moment--and punished for failing to produce 
them. We don't want to become a country where an accent or a skin tone 
could make you a suspect.
  Our Framers gave Congress exclusive domain over immigration policy. 
Immigration policy, like foreign policy, must remain in federal hands. 
They understood that the United States needed a single immigration 
policy, because a patchwork of 50 immigration laws would create a 
logistical nightmare for U.S. citizens and immigrants alike. A family 
from Brooklyn, for example, shouldn't have to bring passports to visit 
the Grand Canyon, but that's what would be needed if a law like SB 1070 
were allowed to go into effect.
  Our Constitution guarantees that all people--no matter where they 
were born or what color of skin--have the same basic rights. These 
rights cannot be allowed to be threatened by a law like SB 1070, which, 
if allowed to go into effect, would undoubtedly lead to irreparable 
violations of these constitutional rights for anyone who appears to be 
``foreign.'' These ``show me your papers'' laws allow extremist 
legislators like those in Arizona and Alabama to turn back the clock on 
some of our hardest won and most important civil rights.
  State-based immigration policy won't fix our federal immigration 
system. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put 
aside partisan rhetoric and work together on creating a federal 
immigration policy that puts our family, economy, and country first. We 
must create an immigration system that reflects our values and moves us 
forward together.
  It is up to the Supreme Court to ensure that all Americans, no matter 
their appearance, are

[[Page E471]]

treated equally. Failing to preserve these constitutional protections 
would undermine our values of liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________