By Henry Hanks, CNN
(CNN) - Nancy Ayala arrived in the U.S. 11 years ago, at the age of 9.
"Why did I move to the States? I still don't know. For a better education, for a better life," she said.
One of her biggest dreams was to join the Marines, but at 17, Ayala - the first in her family to graduate high school - discovered that she couldn't enlist because she didn't have a Social Security number.
"I had dreams, but I had no way to complete them," she said. "Sadly, my whole family is undocumented."
Ayala soon moved back to her home country of Mexico but now regrets doing so: "I've been here for 10 months. I cry every night, missing my family, and God knows when I´ll see them again."
When President Obama announced June 15 that some young immigrants would no longer be deported, Ayala was happy. At the same time, she believed the policy change would not help her.
"There's no way back for me. How can I apply? What can I do? Nothing."
Obama's announcement and the Supreme Court's subsequent rejection of all but one provision of a controversial immigration law in Arizona this week have brought the issue back into the spotlight.
By Carolyn Edgar, Special to CNN
(CNN) -Anne-Marie Slaughter’s much-discussed article in The Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” contains an inconsistency: after describing all the reasons why she had to give up her “dream job,” Slaughter writes: “Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.”
It’s hard to imagine how well the utopian society Slaughter describes will work for female leaders. Those women will still be forced to struggle with the challenges Slaughter describes of trying to hold a position at the top of one’s field while maintaining one’s commitments to family and community.
The truth is, no one – male or female – who wants to work at the top gets to “have it all.” No one gets to be CEO of a Fortune 100 corporation, or managing partner at an international law firm, or United States senator – or President–without making significant personal sacrifices.
I experienced this first hand. FULL POST
By Michael Martinez and Mariano Castillo, CNN
(CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding a piece of Arizona's controversial immigration law portends such a "huge" increase in policing for one department that the chief wondered Tuesday if his agency will be able to handle the workload.
At a time when the Tucson Police Department is down 160 officers because of a weakened economy, the agency now must make up to 50,000 additional phone calls a year to federal officials to verify the immigration status of persons whom officers have stopped and have reason to believe are in the country illegally, Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor said Tuesday.
Other law agencies in Arizona, however, reported "business as usual" a day after the Supreme Court ruling.
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Follow him on Twitter: @rubennavarrette.
By Ruben Navarrette Jr. , CNN Contributor
(CNN) - First, here's what Arizona got wrong: Once upon a time, some lawmakers there decided that the state had a problem with illegal immigrants - most of whom are Hispanic. So they drafted a sweeping law that wound up inconveniencing, singling out and foisting second-class citizenship upon all Hispanics, including those who were born in the United States.
They are the real injured party in the Arizona drama. In its decision on Arizona's immigration law this week, the Supreme Court almost set things right. In a split decision, it struck down three parts of the law, but unfortunately it let stand the worst part, and it is U.S.-born Hispanics who could bear the brunt of the law for many years to come.
For one thing, there are more of them than there are illegal immigrants. Many of the state's illegal immigrants have already left - gone to New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Arkansas and other more welcoming locales. Besides, U.S.-born Hispanics are not in hiding. They're out and about, living their lives as they have every right to do - and coming into contact with police,
How ironic is this situation? These are the people who, in many cases it is often said, didn't cross the border as much as the border crossed them. Some of my friends in Arizona come from families whose roots in that region go back six or seven generations.
by Melissa Abbey, CNN
The Pew Research Center recently released a comprehensive study profiling Asian-Americans in the United States and found them to be more highly educated and well-paid than any other immigrant group in the country.
Asians are also now coming to the United States in greater numbers than Hispanics and make up about 6% of the population.
The study is overwhelmingly positive - most Asian-Americans have at least a college degree and consider themselves hard-working - but it also showed immense diversity among the group.
There are more than 17 million Asian-Americans, and each has a unique story. Here, three immigrant families in the Atlanta area share a slice of their lives. FULL POST
By Alan Duke, CNN
(CNN) - The biggest change in Arizona since the state adopted a tough immigration enforcement policy two years ago has been a more tolerant climate for immigrants, representatives from several groups said Monday.
"There has been a change in Arizona, without a doubt," said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration for the National Council of La Raza, which led a coalition of civil rights groups in a tourism boycott of the state after SB 1070 became law in the spring of 2010.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that three of the law's four key provisions infringed on the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction over immigration. The high court let stand the provision allowing police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
There were dire warnings by critics when the law took effect in July 2010 that it would keep businesses and people from moving to the state and that it would drive families away. There is no good measure of how many Hispanic families, fearing persecution by law enforcement, moved from Arizona.
by Mallory Simon and Bill Mears, CNN
The Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. on Arizona's immigration law, but it upheld the most controversial provision involving police checks on people's immigration status.
So what did we learn and what can we glean from their decision? Bill Mears, CNN's Supreme Court producer, breaks down the decision piece by piece:
1. Others states better tread carefully
By striking down three of the four major provisions and upholding the idea of federal authority on this issue in pretty sweeping comments, the Supreme Court has signaled other states with similar laws that they better tread carefully or make sure their laws do not to reach too far.
In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, his main point was that the national government has significant power to regulate immigration issues. And so that lets states know that while they have some place to play in the issue, the federal government still reigns supreme.
While the court didn’t tell Arizona and other states what they could and couldn’t do when they conduct a traffic stop – for example how long police can hold someone, whether the law would amount to racial profiling – this opinion is essentially guidance moving forward. Their opinion was certainly not a complete smackdown of Arizona's law. Instead, it left some things pretty ambiguous.
Editor's Note: Matt A. Barreto is an associate professor of political science and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Washington. He is co-founder of the polling and research firm Latino Decisions and author of the book "Ethnic Cues: The Role of Shared Ethnicity in Latino Political Participation."
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 anti-immigration law that some observers are calling a “split decision” or even a victory for the federal government over Arizona.
Though the decision did leave open the possibility of someone challenging how law enforcement officers implement the provision that the court upheld, for the Latino community, today is not “split” or a “victory” but rather a very serious blow to civil and human rights.
In May 2010, after the Arizona law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, a Latino Decisions poll found that 85% of Latino registered voters in Arizona believed that it would result in U.S. citizen Latinos being racially profiled and stopped by the police.
Today, the court has created an opening that could allow those fears to come true.
This is all happening in an election year, in which many pundits have called Latino voters a crucial bloc that could influence who wins the presidential election.
So, what are the political implications of the court’s ruling?
By Tom Cohen and Bill Mears, CNN
Washington (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Monday key parts of an Arizona law that sought to deter illegal immigration, but let stand a controversial provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
In a decision sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year, the court's 5-3 ruling upheld the authority of the federal government to set immigration policy and laws.
"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."
The Supreme Court concluded that the federal government has the power to block the law - known as SB1070. Yet the court let stand one of the most controversial parts of the bill - a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government Monday in a controversial case involving an Arizona law that sought to crack down on illegal immigration.
The court struck down key parts of the Arizona law in a 5-3 ruling sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year.
"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not puruse policies that undermined federal law," the majority opinion said.
The majority concluded the federal government had the power to block SB1070, though the court upheld one of the most controversial parts of the bill - a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.
The Obama administration had argued immigration matters were strictly a federal function.
The ruling is likely to have widespread implications for other states that have or are considering similar laws.
Fed up with illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico - and what they say is the federal government's inability to stop it - legislators in Arizona passed a tough immigration law. The federal government sued, saying that Arizona overreached.
At issue is whether states have any authority to step in to regulate immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. In dry legal terms, this constitutional issue is known as pre-emption.