An invitation to profile: Arizona v. United States
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 was declared a “victory” by both proponents and dissenters. While the Supreme Court declared three of the laws four provisions unconstitutional, both President Barack Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of discrimination and the law 2012-06, Vol.12 (2), p.117-127 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 127 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 117 |
container_title | International journal of discrimination and the law |
container_volume | 12 |
creator | Brown, Donathan L. |
description | The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 was declared a “victory” by both proponents and dissenters. While the Supreme Court declared three of the laws four provisions unconstitutional, both President Barack Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer framed the outcome in a positive light. Despite three of the four provisions dismantled, the sole surviving provision allows law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone who violates a non-immigration offense. Although the Supreme Court placed this provision within the parameters of a “wait and see” scenario, whereby, if there are problems/violations in the laws application/implementation, the Court will revisit this provision, I argue that such a provision, despite its “wait and see” clause, invites racial profiling. To illustrate this point, this article will perform a rhetorical analysis of the Court’s majority opinion, before concluding with final thoughts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1358229112462858 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1728655352</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1358229112462858</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1728655352</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-ac77dd5214ff71fd85a2212f63b69bf8435a495673814d67229ffabf17591e8e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkL1LxEAQxRdR8DivvzKlzWpm9rs8Dr_gwEbrZZPsykouOXcTwf_ehFgJYjXF-703M4-QLZQ3AErdAhMa0QAgl6iFPiMrLLmihkt9TlazTGf9kmxyjlUJHLg0iq_IdtcVsfuMgxti3xVDX5xSH2Lrr8hFcG32m5-5Jq_3dy_7R3p4fnja7w60nkIH6mqlmkYg8BAUhEYLhwgYJKukqYLmTDhuhFRMA2-kmq4IwVUBlDDgtWdrcr3kTns_Rp8He4y59m3rOt-P2YJCLYVgAv9HGaKCGZ_QckHr1OecfLCnFI8ufVko7VyZ_V3ZZKGLJbs3b9_7MXXT33_z3900Z8s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1322712865</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An invitation to profile: Arizona v. United States</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Brown, Donathan L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brown, Donathan L.</creatorcontrib><description>The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 was declared a “victory” by both proponents and dissenters. While the Supreme Court declared three of the laws four provisions unconstitutional, both President Barack Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer framed the outcome in a positive light. Despite three of the four provisions dismantled, the sole surviving provision allows law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone who violates a non-immigration offense. Although the Supreme Court placed this provision within the parameters of a “wait and see” scenario, whereby, if there are problems/violations in the laws application/implementation, the Court will revisit this provision, I argue that such a provision, despite its “wait and see” clause, invites racial profiling. To illustrate this point, this article will perform a rhetorical analysis of the Court’s majority opinion, before concluding with final thoughts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1358-2291</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9468</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1358229112462858</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IJDLF2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Arizona ; Courts ; Dissenters ; Governors ; Implementation ; Law ; Law Enforcement ; Legislation ; Legislative Bodies ; Presidents ; Profiles ; Racial profiling ; United States ; United States Supreme Court</subject><ispartof>International journal of discrimination and the law, 2012-06, Vol.12 (2), p.117-127</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1358229112462858$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1358229112462858$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27865,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brown, Donathan L.</creatorcontrib><title>An invitation to profile: Arizona v. United States</title><title>International journal of discrimination and the law</title><description>The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 was declared a “victory” by both proponents and dissenters. While the Supreme Court declared three of the laws four provisions unconstitutional, both President Barack Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer framed the outcome in a positive light. Despite three of the four provisions dismantled, the sole surviving provision allows law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone who violates a non-immigration offense. Although the Supreme Court placed this provision within the parameters of a “wait and see” scenario, whereby, if there are problems/violations in the laws application/implementation, the Court will revisit this provision, I argue that such a provision, despite its “wait and see” clause, invites racial profiling. To illustrate this point, this article will perform a rhetorical analysis of the Court’s majority opinion, before concluding with final thoughts.</description><subject>Arizona</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Dissenters</subject><subject>Governors</subject><subject>Implementation</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Law Enforcement</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Legislative Bodies</subject><subject>Presidents</subject><subject>Profiles</subject><subject>Racial profiling</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Supreme Court</subject><issn>1358-2291</issn><issn>2047-9468</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkL1LxEAQxRdR8DivvzKlzWpm9rs8Dr_gwEbrZZPsykouOXcTwf_ehFgJYjXF-703M4-QLZQ3AErdAhMa0QAgl6iFPiMrLLmihkt9TlazTGf9kmxyjlUJHLg0iq_IdtcVsfuMgxti3xVDX5xSH2Lrr8hFcG32m5-5Jq_3dy_7R3p4fnja7w60nkIH6mqlmkYg8BAUhEYLhwgYJKukqYLmTDhuhFRMA2-kmq4IwVUBlDDgtWdrcr3kTns_Rp8He4y59m3rOt-P2YJCLYVgAv9HGaKCGZ_QckHr1OecfLCnFI8ufVko7VyZ_V3ZZKGLJbs3b9_7MXXT33_z3900Z8s</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Brown, Donathan L.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>An invitation to profile</title><author>Brown, Donathan L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-ac77dd5214ff71fd85a2212f63b69bf8435a495673814d67229ffabf17591e8e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Arizona</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Dissenters</topic><topic>Governors</topic><topic>Implementation</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Law Enforcement</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Legislative Bodies</topic><topic>Presidents</topic><topic>Profiles</topic><topic>Racial profiling</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Supreme Court</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brown, Donathan L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>International journal of discrimination and the law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brown, Donathan L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An invitation to profile: Arizona v. United States</atitle><jtitle>International journal of discrimination and the law</jtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>117</spage><epage>127</epage><pages>117-127</pages><issn>1358-2291</issn><eissn>2047-9468</eissn><coden>IJDLF2</coden><abstract>The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 was declared a “victory” by both proponents and dissenters. While the Supreme Court declared three of the laws four provisions unconstitutional, both President Barack Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer framed the outcome in a positive light. Despite three of the four provisions dismantled, the sole surviving provision allows law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone who violates a non-immigration offense. Although the Supreme Court placed this provision within the parameters of a “wait and see” scenario, whereby, if there are problems/violations in the laws application/implementation, the Court will revisit this provision, I argue that such a provision, despite its “wait and see” clause, invites racial profiling. To illustrate this point, this article will perform a rhetorical analysis of the Court’s majority opinion, before concluding with final thoughts.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1358229112462858</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1358-2291 |
ispartof | International journal of discrimination and the law, 2012-06, Vol.12 (2), p.117-127 |
issn | 1358-2291 2047-9468 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1728655352 |
source | Access via SAGE; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Arizona Courts Dissenters Governors Implementation Law Law Enforcement Legislation Legislative Bodies Presidents Profiles Racial profiling United States United States Supreme Court |
title | An invitation to profile: Arizona v. United States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T09%3A53%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20invitation%20to%20profile:%20Arizona%20v.%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20discrimination%20and%20the%20law&rft.au=Brown,%20Donathan%20L.&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=117&rft.epage=127&rft.pages=117-127&rft.issn=1358-2291&rft.eissn=2047-9468&rft.coden=IJDLF2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1358229112462858&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1728655352%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1322712865&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1358229112462858&rfr_iscdi=true |