* Utah calls Supreme Court ruling a win
* Architect says target was criminals, not soccer moms
By Mary Slosson
SALT LAKE CITY, June 26 (Reuters) – Utah insists that on
immigration issues, it is no Arizona. Its laws are kinder and
gentler, officials say. Despite its conservatism, Utah is one of
only three states, for instance, where illegal immigrants can
drive.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Monday that upheld a key part
off Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants will set the pace
for Utah and other states where laws have been on hold pending
the high court decision.
Passed in 2011, a year after Arizona’s law, Utah’s bill
requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of
anyone detained for a felony or serious misdemeanor. Unlike
neighboring Arizona, Utah makes checks discretionary for those
suspected of lesser offenses.
“I went out of my way to tame down (Utah’s law), to really
specifically go after criminals and not the soccer mom,” said
state Representative Stephen Sandstrom, chief architect of
Utah’s law.
Unlike Arizona, Utah passed provisions outlining a guest
worker program and allowing illegal immigrants to receive
in-state tuition. But those aspects did not take effect, and
experts say implementation is unlikely.
Human rights activists see little difference in the policies
of the two states.
“There is this idea that Utah is more pro-immigrant than
other states,” said Esperanza Granados, an attorney for the Utah
American Civil Liberties Union.
“The truth is that it (the law) has the same impact on the
community. There is a risk of racial profiling. People are
afraid. They don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Arizona law’s
most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check
the immigration status of people they stop.
But in a split decision, the justices also ruled that three
other challenged provisions went too far in intruding on federal
law, including one making it a crime for illegal immigrants to
work and another requiring them to carry their documents.
“We believe this is a win for Utah,” Utah Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff said at a news conference after the high court
ruling was announced. “It really confirms that the Utah
legislature did something different.”
The ruling by the highest court in the United States goes to
the heart of a fierce debate over the 11.5 million illegal
immigrants the government estimates to be in the country.
President Barack Obama has vowed to push for comprehensive
immigration legislation if re-elected on Nov. 6. Polls show
Hispanics, now 16 percent of all Americans, overwhelmingly
support Obama. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
opposed the administration’s challenge to the Arizona law.
‘UTAH NEVER USED TO BE LIKE THIS’
One plaintiff in a Utah lawsuit filed by the ACLU and others
is 36-year-old Alicia Cervantes, who was born in Utah but whose
partner is an illegal immigrant. The couple avoids activities as
camping and fishing, fearing being targeted for their ethnicity.
“We try to avoid certain places because they have random
checkpoints, or we know of the officers targeting Latinos,” she
said. “Utah never used to be like this.”
The Utah law lets authorities query the immigration status
of passengers in a vehicle whose driver has been detained, and
requires proof of citizenship for many public services.
A federal judge has stayed the main law, HB 497, pending the
Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s law.
“Whatever happens to the Arizona law is basically going to
tell the tale for the Utah law,” said Gabriel Chin, an
immigration law professor at the University of California-Davis.
Of the four provisions in Arizona’s immigration law that
were before the Supreme Court, two are mirrored in Utah law: The
one requiring immigration checks for those detained by police,
and another allowing police to arrest immigrants without a
warrant if suspected of a crime that makes them deportable.
But there are differences. “The Arizona law was designed to
make it a crime for an undocumented person to be in the state,”
Chin said. “The Utah law doesn’t go that far.”
Over time, Sandstrom, the Utah law architect, has shifted
his immigration stance. After a revelatory experience a year
ago, he now supports paths for illegal immigrants to become
citizens.
A 19-year-old woman named Sarah came up to him after a
public meeting and shared her story: She was three when her
parents brought her from Mexico. She was an honors student,
planning on working to save money for college, when her parents
told her she was in the country illegally.
“This girl, she is trapped. And we’ve got hundreds of
thousands of kids in her situation that are trapped in this no
man’s land,” Sandstrom said.
He still backs his enforcement bill, but wishes he had
worked with the Hispanic community to make clear that it was
part of a package of laws. Sandstrom ran for Congress this year,
but was ousted during Utah’s Republican convention after losing
the conservative vote over his new immigration stance, he said.
Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought into the
United States as children will be able to avoid deportation for
at least two years and get work permits under a June 15 order
issued by Obama.
(Reporting by Mary Slosson; Editing by Cynthia Johnston;
Desking by Christopher Wilson)
