A federal court ruling moved the battle between Arizona and the federal government back to the front page this week.
Predictable fallout from the decision by Judge Susan R. Bolton included rallies and protests in Arizona and throughout the country, a quick appeal by the Arizona governor and word from other states that they plan to move ahead with legislation similar to Arizona’s — despite the ruling.
Bolton’s ruling left many key provisions of the law in place, but struck down some significant ones, including:
- Requiring law enforcement officers to check immigration status while upholding other laws
- Requiring immigrants to carry papers
- Prohibiting illegals from soliciting work in public places (aimed at day laborers)
- Warrantless arrests of suspected illegals
Bolton has received death threats, but her record in cases dealing with illegal immigrants shows that she heard two cases and in both, ruled against them.
However, with the larger issue of states’ rights versus the federal government, Bolton has ruled twice that federal government rights trump states’ rights.
I found two stories that may have been overlooked by some readers.
One focused on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a legend in Arizona for his war on illegals and for his battles with the federal government on how to deal with them in this county that includes the metro Phoenix area.
An Associated Press examination of records shows that in advance of the new law and under Arpaio’s direction, the county deported more than 26,000 illegals — about 25 percent of all illegals deported from the U.S. in a three-year span. This was done in a partnership with the federal government.
So, as Arpaio told the media, “I don’t know what the big hype is going on with this law. We’ve been doing it for three years.”
The other story reports that the Obama administration will deport more than 400,000 illegals by the end of the fiscal year, 10 percent more than the previous administration and 25 percent more than in 2007.
Most court watchers think the end result of the legal battles will rest with the U.S. Supreme Court and that would seem to bode well for those who favor the law. You can expect that Justice Antonin Scalia, an avowed states’ rights backer, will lead the arguments defending Arizona’s position. Justices Clarence Thomas, Joseph Alito and John Roberts rarely stray far from Scalia’s views.
That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy in the swing position — again.
Where this will all end is anyone’s guess.
What’s your guess?
Resources:
Thanks for the post, Mike. The "states' rights" issue will be at the core of the battle. A valid question I think is, "If state laws are not uniform, what problems does that cause?" So it would seem that a comprehensive federal law and consistent application of it would be the answer, as you say. And again, federal law would trump state law. Flawed logic, perhaps?
The Arizona state senator who helped write the bill has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court.
Why are states allowed to adjust speed limits and taxes to better their communities, but not the enforcement tactics of its police during a federal election season?
Comprehensive immigration reform is needed, but I think states have the right to curtail their law enforcement policies to serve their community.
Post new comment