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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of discrimination and the law 2012-06, Vol.12 (2), p.117-127
1. Verfasser: Brown, Donathan L.
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