Arizona Immigration Law Debate Puts Fed v State Jurisdiction Center-stage

04/23/12

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to sit in judgment this week over Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, and the ramifications are many. One of the political consequences could be that the judgment would influence the presidential race: If Arizona wins then Obama loses face and Romney would have cause to cheer, if Arizona loses, then the consequences would favor Obama. However, of far greater importance to the people of U.S. is how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the rights of Fed v State in the matter of lawmaking and implementation.


In the middle is the judicial system of the country, which time and again has tried to uphold the rule of law, and has found itself criticized by Mr. Obama as an ‘unelected’ body nosing into the affairs of legislatures. From healthcare, through federal authority superseding state laws in medical marijuana, to the present challenge to the rights of Arizona over its own immigration laws, the Obama administration has time and again sparked off the debate. The recent case in the Supreme Court is of consequence because of this – the way the authority of Arizona is defined would affect the working of many states that are similarly tied to the United States concept.

The Issues:

Does federal immigration law pre-empt and bar the key provisions of Arizona’s law?

The provisions in question are:

• Checking the immigration status of anyone detained and suspected of being illegally in the country
• The requirement for immigrants to carry their papers at all times
• Banning illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places
• Arresting of illegal immigrants without a warrant if an officer suspects they have committed a crime making them liable for deportation

The key issue, of course, is the Latino vote bank which forms 16 percent of the present population of U.S. Romney is already not favored by Hispanic illegal immigrants, and Obama is all out against checking immigrant status, as the 11.5 million illegal immigrants can decide the presidency if they can manage to cast votes.

As Paul Clement, the attorney for Arizona says, “This is another federalism case. This is not all about immigration. It's really about the relationship between the federal government and the state government. It's the norm that you have state officials enforcing federal law.”

A recent Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll already found that Americans generally support Arizona and are undecided about the Fed v State debate at the core of the case. The opinion poll found close to seventy percent of those surveyed favoring state laws that allow police to check a person’s immigration status and criminalize illegal immigrants working in the U.S.A. As usual, in most regions of U.S. the debate has become a mindless Democrat v Republican thing with partisans giving little thought to the actual implications upon the institution of federal democracy.