United States vs. Arizona - the Battle Over SB1070

On July 6, 2010 Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona to block the controversial SB1070 from going into effect on July 29, 2010. The lawsuit was filed alleging that the Arizona Law violates the Supremacy clause of U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, filed in Federal Court in Phoenix, does not challenge the law on the grounds of racial profiling, as contended by several immigrants rights group allege, as these claims would be impossible to prove before actual enforcement of SB1070 begins.

In the lawsuit, the Federal Government claims that the lawsuit violates the Constitution as "The Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." US. Constitution Article II Section 3. Further the President has broad authority over foreign affairs. Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements."

It further alleges that "Enforcement of SB 1070 would also effectively create state crimes and sanctions for unlawful presence despite Congress's considered judgment not to criminalize such status. SB 1070 would thus interfere with federal policy and prerogatives in the enforcement of the U.S. Immigration Laws."

The lawsuit goes on to say that "SB 1070 has subjected the United States to direct criticism by other countries and international organizations and has resulted in a breakdown in certain planned bilateral and and multilateral on such issues as border security and disaster management. SB 1070 has in these ways undermined several aspects of U.S. foreign policy."

According to a Press Release issued by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on July 6, 2010 in response to the Federal Lawsuit states " The truth is the Arizona Law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades." It also says " Despite the Department of Justice's claim in Paragraph 62 of today's lawsuit, Arizona is not trying to "Establish it's own immigration policy or directly regulate the immigration status of aliens." The press release also bemoans the sanctuary cities policies by saying " The irony is that President Obama's Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration policy and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of 'sanctuary' policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

A number of states are looking at passing their own Immigration Laws. In 2007, Oklahoma passed the "Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007". This law prohibits illegal immigrants from gaining state identification and direct all state and local agencies to verify citizenship status before authorizing social service benefits. Oklahoma is now looking at passing legislation requiring tougher penalties for illegal immigrants caught with a firearm. Other states looking at passing their own immigration legislation include South Carolina, Idaho, Missouri, Utah. Texas, North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado and Virginia.

Governor Carcieri of Rhode Island, in March, 2008 signed Executive Order 08-01 that parallels the Arizona Immigration Law by directing local law enforcement to verify immigration status of persons taken into custody or under investigation. There has yet been any Federal Legal challenge to this Executive Order.

According to a recent Gallup poll, more than 75% of the Americans polled have heard about the Arizona Immigration Law and 51% say they favor it. Angus also conducted an on-line poll and found that 71% of respondents favor requiring state and local police to determine a person's residency status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an illegal immigrant.

During last week's Immigration reform speech, President Obama said that the Arizona Immigration Law was "ill conceived" but also said that states were taking matters "in there own hands" because the Federal Government had failed to act.

Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyle issued a joint statement after the lawsuit was filed saying "the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law." The statement says "Attorney General Holder speaks of the 'federal government's responsibility' to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility?" It further adds "The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility"

A Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Analysis estimates that the cost of illegal immigration to Arizonans is over 2.7 billion annually. The research also shows that K-12 education of the children of illegal immigrants cost Arizona Taxpayers almost 1.4 billion yearly. According to a 2007 Population estimate by the Department of Homeland Security, there are approximately 530,000 illegal immigrants living in Arizona. This number is up 63% since the 2000 estimate of 330,000.

The question is, will there be a backlash against the Democratic Party by supporters of Arizona's Immigration Law? Citizens who support these laws and decry illegal immigration and an amnesty policy that was hinted at during President Obama's Immigration speech may decide to take their anger over these policies to the polls in November. This could give control of the House and Senate to the republicans and spell the end of any possibility to pass comprehensive immigration reform during the President's first term.