Arizona Immigration Law Slapped by Feds

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 1, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

           Striking down Arizona’s controversial immigration law, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton reminded Arizona lawmakers about the limits of states’ rights.  When  Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law April 22, making it a crime to not possess immigration papers, the Arizona legislature didn’t consider its was stepping on the federal government’s toes.  Passions flamed in Arizona due to the murder of a white rancher at the hands of an alleged illegal Mexican immigrant.  State legislators and national politicians, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), adopted the new law as a campaign issue, promising to crackdown on illegals.  McCain’s flip-flop from his full endorsement two years ago of former President George W. Bush’s liberal immigration reform plan, goes to the heart of why the Arizona law was doomed:  Passions, not logic, drove the Arizona legislature.

            States rights’ advocates need to remember the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, where the federal government preempts the states.  Federalism permits states’ rights but not at the expense of the Constitution.  Arizona politicians shouldn’t take Judge Bolton’s ruling personally, only realize the limits of states’ rights.  Whether states like federal immigration policy or enforcement, doesn’t give states the right to supercede federal authority.  Arizona’s law, slated to go into effect July 30, would have made illegal status a state crime and given law enforcement the necessary probable cause to detain, arrest and deport individuals without proper immigration papers.  Arizona’s law deeply offended the Latino community causing protests around the country.  Several states refuse to continue doing business with Arizona to register extreme displeasure with the state’s new law.

            Border states, like Texas, Arizona and California, have problems with illegal immigration but also benefit from the cheap labor pool.  Many industries, including agriculture, construction, etc., depend heavily on the illegal immigration workforce.  Serving for the last 50 years and the largest growing immigration population, Latinos make up 90% of today’s immigration into the U.S.  Without Latino immigration, the U.S. population growth would shrink, unable to provide an adequate workforce of unskilled labor needed to run vital U.S. industries.  Judge Bolton understood the knee-jerk nature of Arizona’s SB 1070.  No local or statewide body can usurp the U.S. Constitution or federal government authority to make, pass, and implement federal laws that protect against otherwise unfair local and state customs.  No state has the right to supercede the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

            Arizona’s controversial immigration bill wasn’t all that much different from the California law banning gay marriage.  While California’s ban on gay marriage was approved by 54% of voters, it didn’t meet the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection requirement.  Unlike the Arizona law, the federal courts have not overturned or invalidated the current ban on gay marriage.  “While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive,” said a Justice Dept. communiqué, reminding state officials that making and enforcing immigration laws is the job of the federal government.  Gov. Brewer promised an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Given the court’s makeup, it’s doubtful it will overturn the Phoenix District Court.

            Promising to take Judge Bolton’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, the bill’s author Arizona Sen. Russell Peace rejected the District Court’s ruling.  Peace knows there’s little hope at the 9th Circuit Court, revealing.  Because the current composition of the Supreme Court is 5-4 conservative, Peace expects eventual vindication in the High Court.  While he politicizes the High Court, the Supreme Court runs more on judicial precedent and logic, not local passions.  Whether or not the High Court remains conservative, justices must apply cold logic and common sense.  On that ground, Arizona has little to stand on.  “For those saying, ‘Wait till the conservative wing of the Supreme Court gets their hands on this,’ I’m not so sure,” said University of Arizona law professor Gabriel “Jack” Chin.  Chin feels the High Court won’t usurp the federal government’s jurisdiction on immigration

            While conservative rant-and-rave about the Obama administration interfering with states’ rights, they should take a deep breath and consider the value of federalism.  When some liberals sought to curtail the influence of right wing media, it was the federal Communication Commission that stepped in.  Arizona, or other states for that matter, have plenty of laws on the books to give law enforcement the tools to enforce real criminal conduct.  Arizona’s SB 1070 would have made it a state crime to not posses federal immigration papers.  How Gov. Brewer or Sen. Peace thought their bill met the federal smell test is anyone’s guess.  Attorney Gen. Eric Holder did exactly what any federal official would do under the circumstances:  Enforced federal jurisdiction and law.  Unlike the European Union that pretends to defend common rights, there’s only one United States of America.

About the Author    

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.