Tweet
Today, Attorney General Holder and the Obama DOJ will file suit against Arizona’s "show me your papers" law:
The Obama administration will argue that S.B. 1070, the state’s controversial immigration law, set to take effect later this month, is unconstitutional.
President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have publicly criticized the law, which would give police officers the authority to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Civil rights groups say the law could lead to widespread racial profiling, but Arizona says it is giving law enforcement officers training on how to avoid potential pitfalls.
Jerry Markon, of The Washington Post, outlines the government’s legal argument:
The lawsuit … will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes.
Clearly, this is progress. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but the administration’s legal case appears to me to be strong. However, legal cases like this are no sure thing.
The Arizona law, SB1070, goes into effect on July 29th. Will the administration ask for and get an injuction while the legal case proceeds? And if this case gets to the Supreme Court, will they overturn the law? I’m personally hesitant to bank on the Supreme Court doing anything progressive, given its current makeup.
So while this immensely important suit goes forward, there’s more that needs to be done. There are over 425,000 unregistered Latinos and Africa-Americans in Arizona. A group I’m working with, Promise Arizona, has started a campaign to register them to vote and turn them out in November. Other groups in Arizona are working towards this goal as well.
Given that Republican Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the law, is being challenged by Democrat and current AZ attorney general Terry Goddard and Goddard is leading in polls [pdf] that aren’t non-trustworthy Rasmussen polls, these voters could very well make the difference and put someone in office who’s against the law, is refusing to help defend it as AG, and believes in comprehensive immigration reform.
7 Comments
Gee, I thought I was a very well informed citizen but am learning new things every day — which is a good thing. I always thought that local law enforcement (town, city, state police, etc.) did enforce federal laws in addtion to state and local codes ??
We already import drugs and violence from Mexico.
Obama wants to import poverty from Mexico too?
Immigration laws in the USA have ALWAYS been about jobs. Immigration reform won’t create a single job.
This lawsuit will benefit the corporate masters that need low cost labor and nobody else. Corporate money tips the scales again. Hispanics may be easily misled to support this lawsuit, but I can’t see how it helps them. Am I wrong?
Um, what?
This lawsuit certainly isn’t a replacement for national reform of immigration laws, but nobody is saying it is, especially Obama. But the Arizona law is about far more than immigration. It gives police the power to demand papers from and detain anyone who looks “illegal.” That’s way way over the line when it comes to civil rights and deserves to be challenged.
Obama’s challenge should indeed be supported by Latinos, and anyone else who gives a damn about civil liberties in this country.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, states can’t pass laws that conflict with federal law. When Congress enacts a comprehensive legal framework in a particular field, states are precluded or “preempted” from passing laws in that same area. It is very likely that the Arizona law violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with federal law–there’s an excellent discussion here: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html
In addition, even though Arizona may believe it is trying to help federal authorities enforce the law. the federal govt may conclude that AZ’s approach conflicts with the federal approach. There is discussion of this point here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-arizonas-new-immigration-law.html
It’s not guaranteed that the AZ law will be struck down on preemption grounds, but there are other arguments as well.
You ignore common sense to frame your reply. Police already have the power to arrest anyone who looks illegal.
You use circular logic to prove your point. Mexicans are illegal therefore the law must be racial. w/e.
your first point.
Nope, not even close. It’s called a PHOTO ID. GIVE ONE TO THE COP AND YOU AINT ARRESTED.
You just miss the whole point, period. People need the law to be enforced. The laws ARE PROGRESSIVE. Importing UNREGULATED labor is GLOBALIST NEOLIBERAL policy.
Civil Rights my ass. How do you think immigration laws should be enforced? I don’t expect a reply. Obviously.
Who’s supporting unregulated labor? Certainly not me. Not sure where you got that strawman.
However, I certainly believe in civil liberties, and I definitely believe in probably cause. Getting asked by the police for your drivers license is “showing them your papers.” The fact that they can do it because you look like someone who’s not supposed to be in this country is mind-blowing, and against the core values of the United States.
For a copy of the complaint, preliminary injunction memo & discussion, see
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/07/doj-files-complaint-against-arizona-sb-1070-alleging-statute-unconstitutional.html