Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, a lot of cases have subtle nuances. The general public just thinks "this law is bad" and when it gets struck down thinks "good, the Court agreed with me." However, it's the "why" that's important. The Arizona law had significant issues related to discrimination, unlawful searches, etc. None of those issues actually got decided. All the Court said was that the federal government has control, not the states.
Since this is a history forum, I have half a mind to talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act and how it led to modern US immigration policy. It's weird to think that the US had essentially no immigration policies until that point. It was also awkward for US Presidents because they were reaching trade agreements with China and Japan that essentially said both sides had a right to go to the other country. Then Congress would turn around and exclude Chinese and Japanese people from coming to this country. That's why there were "gentlemen's agreements" where Japan would agree not to issue visas for its people so the US wouldn't have to be in the awkward position of excluding them. Although, generally, the agreement was just ignored anyway and Japanese people continued to immigrate here.
I will leave with this. In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" accommodations that segregated races were constitutional (technically, they never said it had to be "equal," but the Louisiana law in question did at least require it, so that phraseology stuck). Justice Harlan is famous for his dissent, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause forbid this kind of discrimination. Unfortunately, he also had this line:
One year later, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It said that a child of Chinese parents born on US soil would be a US citizen (based on the very clear language of the 14th Amendment that says basically that). Justice Harlan joined the dissent of Justice Fuller. It essentially argued that Chinese people could not become citizens because they were a "distinct race and religion, distinct race and religion, remaining strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, tenaciously adhering to the customs and usages of their own country, unfamiliar with our institutions, and apparently incapable of assimilating with our people."
Since this is a history forum, I have half a mind to talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act and how it led to modern US immigration policy. It's weird to think that the US had essentially no immigration policies until that point. It was also awkward for US Presidents because they were reaching trade agreements with China and Japan that essentially said both sides had a right to go to the other country. Then Congress would turn around and exclude Chinese and Japanese people from coming to this country. That's why there were "gentlemen's agreements" where Japan would agree not to issue visas for its people so the US wouldn't have to be in the awkward position of excluding them. Although, generally, the agreement was just ignored anyway and Japanese people continued to immigrate here.
I will leave with this. In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" accommodations that segregated races were constitutional (technically, they never said it had to be "equal," but the Louisiana law in question did at least require it, so that phraseology stuck). Justice Harlan is famous for his dissent, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause forbid this kind of discrimination. Unfortunately, he also had this line:
There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana ... are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.
One year later, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It said that a child of Chinese parents born on US soil would be a US citizen (based on the very clear language of the 14th Amendment that says basically that). Justice Harlan joined the dissent of Justice Fuller. It essentially argued that Chinese people could not become citizens because they were a "distinct race and religion, distinct race and religion, remaining strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, tenaciously adhering to the customs and usages of their own country, unfamiliar with our institutions, and apparently incapable of assimilating with our people."