Arizona v. United States Going to the Supremes

The Supreme Court has decided - quite understandably - to weigh in on the SB1070 - the controversial Arizona immigration law that has spawned copycat bills around the country. The courts have been divided regarding where the lines can be drawn constitutionally when states decide to get in the immigration lawmaking business. I'm not going to weigh in to the predictions game (except the fact that Justice Kagan has recused herself won't help opponents of the law), but there is something to be said for at least having some certainty one way or the other on this issue.

Comments

[Another Voice]

"Anti-enforcements, by definition, don't want any help from the states."

You live in fantasy land Jack, ever heard of Secure communities and 287 g the states are doing their part for sure. Have you looked at the record deportations and significant drop in border crossings.....

[Jack]

"there is something to be said for at least having some certainty one way or the other on this issue."

Agreed. Anti-enforcements, by definition, don't want any help from the states. They have a strategy of suing everybody and threatening local governments that "we'll bankrupt you" in order to deter new laws. Thuggish perhaps, but fairly effective. Which explains why many don't want the Supreme Court to clarify the law. I applaud anti-enforcements who, for the good of the country, are willing to get some clarity even if it might establish some precedents which states can use to pass enforcement laws immune from suit. Whoever comes out with more of what they want, at least we could all move on. It's hard to predict. Who predicted the licensing exception last time?

There are a TON of potential issues, some broad, which the Supreme Court might, and arguably should, address. Of course, we don't usually get such rulings. Based on precedent, I think arguments against profiling are weak. There's a tension between congressional plenary power over the field of law vs. the discretion of the Executive to enforce (or not) but the Executive is sticking its nose into what the states do to a degree that legal analysts are calling unprecedented. If the Congress allows or even encourages state assistance, can the Executive not just turn the help down, but stop the state from even offering? I.e., not just refuse to "pick up the phone" but bar the state from even making the call? Pro-enforcements think the Executive is stepping all over the toes of Congress but will the Court just say that it's up to Congress to do something about it, not us (and pass the buck)? You'd think some distinction will be made between "federal" (which Obama Justice likes to claim power for themselves with) vs. "congressional" power over immigration (which excludes the Executive branch).

[gg]

SHOCK POLL RESULTS

The Partnership for a New American Economy announces a new poll showing that the Iowa Republican likely caucus-goers, more than 80% of whom self-identify as conservative or very conservative, support legal immigration reform and rank illegal immigration as a lower priority than most other issues polled. The poll was conducted between November 16 and November 19, 2011 by Selzer & Co., using the same methodology and sample size the firm uses for the presidential poll that it conducts for the Des Moines Register.

http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/IA-Republican-Caucus-Goers-Immigration-Attitudes.pdf

[George Chell]

For a lot of people it is damned if you do and damned if you dont...if they rule that the states have right to legislate on immigration and that the AZ law is constitutional, you will have states like CA, MD and IL providing sanctuary and in-state tuition while others will try and pass even tougher immigration laws.