Tomorrow's SCOTUS Argument on Arizona's Immigration Law
Tomorrow at 10 am, the Justices take up the Arizona immigration law known as S.B. 1070. If you listen to the MSM, you'll find out that this is a case about the evil Jan Brewer's plan to harass law-abiding latinos until there isn't even a Taco Bell left in Phoenix. In truth, this is an important case about State's rights.
The Ninth Circuit -- that Olympian tribunal -- held that four key provisions of SB 1070 are pre-empted by federal immigration law. But what is the scope of federal power here? Under the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, Section 8). Only Congress can set the rules for who should be admitted to the United States, and under what conditions they can remain.
An individual state cannot make a law that conflicts with the “uniform rule” set by Congress. But states can make laws that affect aliens, including laws that make life more difficult for illegal aliens. In 1976, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a California law prohibiting companies from knowingly employing illegal aliens. Such a law, said the Court, was a “mainstream” example of the state’s “police power” (DeCanas v. Bica).
The primary federal immigration statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically provides for the kind of federal-state cooperation that the Arizona law advances. The INA requires, for example, that federal authorities “shall respond” to state and local requests to verify the immigration status of any person. It also empowers state and local officials to arrest previously deported felons who have reentered the country illegally.
So where was the conflict? The Ninth Circuit found that the Arizona law would undermine not the INA, but rather the executive branch’s “policies” and “objectives.” The St. Thomas More Law Center put it more bluntly: the law was “pre-empted by an executive policy of non-enforcement of federal law” (emphasis added). That policy of non-enforcement is so extreme that the Obama Administration originally attempted to block every single section of SB 1070, even the part that prohibits “sanctuary cities” within the state. From the Obama point of view, cities have the right to block federal immigration law, but states cannot enforce it.
Under the 10th Amendment, States retain the internal "police power" to protect the health and safety of their citizens (provided they don't violate the Constitution in doing so). Arizona had ample justification to enact SB 1070. It’s been estimated that half of all illegal aliens entering the United States come through Arizona’s porous border. Illegal aliens comprise 6 percent of Arizona’s population and 7.4 percent of its workforce. Many of the aliens crossing into Arizona are simply desperate for work, but others are hardened criminals. The Mexico/Arizona border zone is so dangerous that large areas of state parkland are now off-limits to law-abiding citizens. Criminal aliens make up a whopping 17 percent of Arizona’s prison population. All in all, the State spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to provide prison cells and social services for people who would not be in the country at all if the federal government had done its job.
If a state does not retain enough “police power” to deal with a crisis of that magnitude, then the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Tomorrow's SCOTUS Argument on Arizona's Immigration Law
This will eventually lead to something akin to secession if not addressed.
Oct '10
Re: Tomorrow's SCOTUS Argument on Arizona's Immigration Law
Isn't this just another example of both the Executive and Legislative branches increasing reliance on agencies, i.e., the bureaucracy, to govern?
For the President and Congress, why take a stand on a controversial issue (advocate for the creation of, or a change to, a law) when you can have a third party carry out your commands without any fanfare?
The constituency that benefits from the underhanded, behind the scenes rules will quickly get the message (vote for the incumbent!), and everyone else will get tired trying to figure out how the incumbent is to blame for the EPA/ICE/TEA/DOE/etc. rules and regulations.
Re: Tomorrow's SCOTUS Argument on Arizona's Immigration Law
jhimmi: Isn't this just another example of both the Executive and Legislative branches increasing reliance on agencies, i.e., the bureaucracy, to govern?
For the President and Congress, why take a stand on a controversial issue (advocate for the creation of, or a change to, a law) when you can have a third party carry out your commands without any fanfare?· 2 hours ago
It's true that the President and Congress are happy to let administrative agencies do the dirty work and avoid the blame. But this is a different dynamic. Here, the President does not want ICE to enforce the law, and even when a State offers to do the dirty work that the federal government should be doing, the administration is fighting tooth and nail. The administration's legal stance is not, I believe, based on any sound view of federalism, but is driven by the desire to pander to hispanic voters.
Dec '10
Re: Tomorrow's SCOTUS Argument on Arizona's Immigration Law
Adam,
Once again the Obamites show their true colors. The Constitution and Rule of Law itself is just a hinderance to their aims. Their policy not to enforce the federal law is criminal in itself. To compound it by stopping a State from helping the enforcement of the federal law makes it crystal clear what this administration is all about.
Arizona does this solely out of self defense as it is on the front line of the problem. The MSM has demonized Arizona for this. I think blind Justice herself wants to take the blind fold off and sock Eric Holder in the snout.
Oh if the Supreme Court can summon up the courage to throw a monkey wrench into this juggernaut of stupidity.
Maybe Gd will pay another visit to the Justices. I don't mind 5 to 4. A miracle is still a miracle.
Regards,
Jim