The Arizona Decision

I just read the court's decision in the suit by the US against the State of Arizona in connection with the state's immigration law. Much of the law has been uphelp but a major portion has been temporarily enjoined. The basis for the key portions of the ruling seems quite wrong to me.

First, the court finds that by Arizona notifying the federal government of illegals who Arizona has apprehended, the state will place an undue burden on the federal government and that this is unconstitutional. This is utter nonsense. The feds are required by current law to find illegal aliens and remove them from the country. If the state finds these people on its own and gives that information to the feds, it can only assist the feds in carrying out their legal responsibilities. It is an aid not an undue burden.

Second, the court finds that by the state asking possible aliens for identification, there will be an undue burden placed upon the few aliens who are here legally but who will not have proof of that status. The aliens who have applied for asylum but have not yet been given a response fall into this category. While this sounds like a good argument, it fails once one considers that the federal government currently has the authority to ask these same people for identification and could take them into custody until their status was determined. It cannot be an undue burden on these folks rights if the federal government has already received the authority to do the same thing both by statute and by the decision of the Supreme Court. Government impinging on individual rights does not change if it is a state or federal government.

The decision seems to me to be one that bends over backwards to find in the favor of the US on as much as possible. Even so, most of the law survives. This decision will surely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. Given the makeup of that court, the decision will most likely be affirmed, and then it will head to the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, Arizona may just change its statute so that it provides that upon the lawful stopping of a person, the police may check the immigration status of that person if there is reason to believe that he or she is not here legally. Making it optional would take away most of the basis for the court's ruling. In addition, Arizona could require anyone seeking state benefits of any sort to produce identification, and it could limit those benefits to legal residents. The state could also require anyone who does business with the state or any subdivision of the state to produce identification for all employees; the penalty for non-compliance could be forfeiture of the contract with no further payments owing or some other serious penalty that would force the contractors to only use legal residents for labor.

It is interesting to note that the court left standing the provision that makes it illegal for anyone or any subdivision of the state to take any act that would prevent the enforcement of the immigration laws. Sanctuary cities cannot exist in Arizona. Indeed, a police department that chooses not to check the identification of suspicious people may actually be violating the law that remains in effect.

It is sad that Obama decided to use this law for race-baiting purposes rather than as a wake up call to start enforcing the immigration laws. Still, the battle is far from over.