Supreme Court Hears Arizona Immigration Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The highest court in the land is ruling on the controversial law from Arizona, the effects of which has rippled across the country.

The Supreme Court is hearing the controversial immigration law out of Arizona. That law gives state and local law enforcement the authority to ask for immigration papers, just as federal law enforcement would.

Some say it’s a political issue, some say it’s an issue of the letter of the law. Even though the two stand opposed on how the court should move forward, their passion is on the same high level. In 2010, Arizona passed a law enabling law enforcement to ask for immigrant documentation of anyone they stop, if they have reason to believe that person might be an illegal immigrant.

“I, as Governor, I felt was somewhat insured that I had a right to protect the citizens of Arizona,” stated Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

Federal courts struck down the law, but the state challenged and took it to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments Wednesday. Outside, hundreds protested, saying the law promotes racial profiling.

“In fact, I’ve even talked with youth who were interested in going to the University and they asked me if that’s a possibility and they were like, ‘No way…the way I look. I’m a Latino and I don’t want to be harassed for going down there,'” says Kathy Keesee, with UNETE.

Oregon State Representative Sal Esquivel traveled to Arizona at the height of the controversy, campaigning in factor of states’ rights. Esquivel says Arizona was forced to create and pass the law.

“If the Federal Government won’t do its job, I see no alternative than for the state to take things into their own hands. But that’s against the whole process of the United States,” says Esquivel, “I don’t mind putting a hand out for anyone to come to America, but let’s do it legal.”

But some say there are no other options.

“And so risking your life, crossing the border, coming into the U.S., even though you’re treated poorly here, it’s still better than literally starving,” says Keesee.

Tuesday was the only day the court heard arguments on the case and reporters inside said the justices seem to be leaning towards upholding th