Arizona's Immigration Law: What's Left

Although U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put a hold on several of the more explosive provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law Wednesday, the rest of the legislation is now in effect. Included are several of the provisions not blocked by Bolton:

-Arizona residents will be allowed to bring legal action against any state official or agency that implements a policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws. If guilty, the official or agency will pay a penalty of $1000-5000 for each day the policy is in place after the suit is filed.

-It will be illegal for day laborers to enter vehicles or for drivers to pick up day laborers if it impedes the flow of traffic.

-Employers will be expected to verify employees’ citizenship via an electronic program.

-State employees and supervisors who discover violations of the federal immigration law will be required to report them or face a misdemeanor.

-Knowingly transporting, hiring or harboring illegal aliens is a crime, as is encouraging or inducing an alien to enter the U.S. illegally.

-Vehicles used to transport illegal aliens can be impounded.

-Arizona residents applying for a federal public benefit will be required to present identification to confirm their citizenship. These forms of IDs include driver’s licenses, birth certificates or documents proving American Indian heritage. Residents will also be required to sign a sworn affidavit ensuring the legitimacy of the document under penalty of perjury.

-The Arizona bill sets up a Joint Border Advisory Committee within the state legislature intended to gather testimony on border security and issue a monthly report.

Arizona Lawmakers React to Court Decision

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

Arizona lawmakers from both parties released statements in response to Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to curtail some of the more controversial provisions in the Arizona immigration bill, SB 1070.

Republican senators John McCain and Jon Kyl released a joint statement condemning the court’s decision. 

“We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law,” the two senators said, “Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona…Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state”

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-4th), on the other hand, was satisfied with the decision. 

“I am pleased with U.S. District Court Judge Bolton’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction that will prevent the core provisions of Senate Bill 1070 from taking effect,” said Pastor in a statement. “The implementation of these provisions would have seriously interfered with federal immigration enforcement causing irreparable harm to the people of Arizona.”

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-6th) said that it was “frustrating to have the federal government actively preventing states from addressing immigration enforcement, when the federal government has shown that it’s unwilling to address immigration reform on its own,” and that it is “going to take comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level to successfully address this issue.”

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-1st), while opposed to SB 1070, supported the attention that it brought to illegal immigration.  Kirkpatrick was rather pessimistic in her statement, concluding that, “there are no winners here – no matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure.”

Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-5th) joined his collegues in harshly criticizing the Obama administration for suing Arizona, saying that “today’s ruling should not provide Washington any kind of excuse not to address the issue.  Arizonans are justifiably fed up with the federal government’s failure to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system, and are fed up with of all the political posturing and grandstanding on this issue.”

Brookings Scholar Predicts Arizona Lawsuit Will Fail

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

Darrel West, the Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, predicted Wednesday that the lawsuit filed recently by the Justice Department against Arizona will likely fail.

“The Justice Department claims that states can’t make immigration policy when in fact states have been passing immigration laws for decades,” West said during an afternoon Webchat. “I don’t think the courts will buy the idea that only the federal government can make immigration policy.”

Explained West, “In the 19th century, Southern states limited migration to their states based on race and property. California tried to exclude the Chinese in the late 19th century. And governors today sign all sorts of immigration laws.” 

The Department’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday, was a reaction to Arizona’s new hard-line immigration policy, which allows law enforcement officials to request proof of citizenship from those suspected to be in the country illegally. Critics have charged that the law will ultimately lead to racial profiling and threaten public safety by allowing the public’s trust in police to erode.

The lawsuit is based on the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which dictates that legislation passed at a state level cannot trump federal law.

Although West stated that he does not believe the lawsuit will be effective, he noted that the law was far from ideal.

“The new Arizona law creates more problems that it solves,” West said.

Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Over Immigration Law

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Arizona and its Governor Jan Brewer in response to the state’s controversial immigration law.

Citing the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the suit argues that Arizona’s legislation is invalid since it conflicts with federal law.

The state law, passed in April, grants law enforcement officials the authority to request proof of citizenship from those suspected of being in the country illegally. Critics have charged that it will ultimately lead to racial profiling.

The law’s defenders, including Governor Brewer, argue that the hardline legislation is simply a reaction to the federal government’s failure to effectively address border security.

In a statement released Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged supporters’ complaint, but characterized the law’s repeal as a matter of national security.

“Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration,”Holder said. “But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.”   

The Arizona law, formerly titled SB 1070, goes into effect at the end of July.

Obama Pushes For Comprehensive Immigration Reform

President Barack Obama brought immigration policy to the front burner Thursday in an address that called for comprehensive reform.

“After years of patchwork fixes [and] ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders,” Obama said before an audience made up of religious, labor, and business leaders at American University in Washington, D.C.

In his nearly 40 minute long remarks, the President outlined the provisions Congress should incorporate into reform legislation, including additional security along U.S. borders and a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally.

“They must be required to admit they broke the law, register, pay their taxes, pay a fine and learn English,” Obama said. “They must get right with the law before they get in line and earn their citizenship.”

Obama also emphasized that reform would need to avoid the solutions put forward by those on the far ends of the political spectrum, noting that neither amnesty nor mass deportation were realistic or desirable approaches.

The issue of immigration reform gained national prominence in April when Arizona passed a controversial bill that allowed law enforcement officials to ask individuals suspected of being in the country illegally for proof of citizenship.

Obama said Thursday that the law, which the White House has been a fierce critic of since its passage, can be attributed to the federal government’s failure to address border security.

“Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands,” Obama stated. “Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable, but it is also ill-conceived.”

In 2005 and 2006, a push by Congress to reform the immigration system made considerable headway, but ultimately flopped when the legislation passed in both chambers could not be reconciled.