'States' Rights' Won't Save Arizona's Immigration Law

The Obama administration has leaked, albeit clumsily, the Justice Department's plans to file a legal challenge to Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which would require local police to check the immigration status of anyone when "reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the country illegally.

The idea first was revealed two weeks ago by, of all people, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a television interview in, of all places, Ecuador, and has been confirmed by administration sources.

If the Justice Department proceeds, it would be a highly unusual and risky political gambit involving the politically volatile subject of immigration in a congressional election year.

The political right has mobilized against the possible legal threat; the talking points warn against another "government takeover" and an intrusive power grab of states' authority. The language of the Arizona law "mirrors federal law," its supporters say, so the Justice Department lacks the grounds to attack it.

The question pivots on whether immigration law is a federal domain. If so, it trumps state laws, regardless of language, even if state laws violate constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure.

Precedent for federal supremacy in immigration matters is abundantly clear. Similarly, states cannot unilaterally declare war against another nation, sign an independent international trade agreement or create their own currency.

Five federal lawsuits filed by Hispanic and civil rights advocacy groups are pending against the Arizona law, set to take effect July 29. The lawsuits seek a temporary injunction against the law's enforcement.

In addition, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, as well the mayors and police chiefs of the two largest Arizona cities, Phoenix and Tucson, oppose SB 1070.

The opponents cite Proposition 187 in California, which denied benefits to illegal immigrants.

It was overturned by a federal judge in 1997; the court held that the state had intruded into federal jurisdiction.

California voters had approved Prop 187 by 57 percent, and a healthy majority in public opinion polls supported it. But federal courts do not adjudicate based on public opinion polls.

Illegal immigration is a major national problem that must be confronted, but that should happen within a broader framework that includes the entire outdated immigration system and border security. Congress' failure to do so has led to states taking matters into their own hands; at least 20 states, including Missouri, may follow Arizona's lead.

Even some towns are getting in on the action. On Monday, the meatpacking town of Fremont, Neb., passed an ordinance that outlawed the hiring of illegal immigrants and renting them housing.

As long as Congress fails to act, more problems will arise. Russell Pearce, the Arizona state senator who sponsored SB 1070, now advocates that children born to undocumented immigrants be denied U.S. citizenship — never mind that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

Others seek to ban undocumented immigrant children from public schools, despite the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe in which Texas public schools were ordered to educate all children. Recently, some critics vilified the U.S. Census Bureau for counting all residents — as the Constitution mandates — regardless of their legal status.

Our nation of laws is governed by the U.S. Constitution. Throughout our country's history, local laws that violate defined federal authority have been stuck down. The Arizona immigration law should be next.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM