Thoughts on Illegal Immigration

Arizona has a big problem with illegal immigrants. They recently tried to pass a law, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, that would help deport these illegal aliens. Good for them, right? States should be able to make and enforce their own laws provided they are constitutional.

As far as I understand it, the Arizona law had 4 main provisions. I have not read the bill, so I don't know the exact wording, but the main provisions go something like this.

1) Police are required to check the immigration status of the offender in any lawful stop.

2) Illegal immigrants must have their registration papers with them at all times.

3) Illegal immigrants cannot apply for work.

4) Police have permission to make warrantless arrests if they believe there is probable cause that the offence would make the offender removable from the US.

The Department of Justice thought that this law was unconstitutional so it filed a challenge. Eventually, this case made its way to the Supreme Court. When it made its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the last 3 provisions were unconstitutional citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It says this:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So I have never studied law but I don't see how this Arizona bill undermines the supremacy of federal law or the Constitution. What I think is happening is this. Immigration has generally been considered a federal government issue, not a state government issue. When Arizona wanted to make harsher penalties or create new restrictions in this bill, it was simply trying to solve it's illegal immigration problem. But the federal government usually deals with this problem so it got mad when Arizona tried to do it on its own. So the Court ruled in favor of federal law.

Basically, the Court said that federal laws trump (or in legal jargon, "pre-empt") states' laws. I am displeased with this. If Arizona had made a law that contradicted a federal law, then I could see the Supremacy Clause as legal grounds to discard the Arizona law. But it didn't do that! The Arizona law does not contradict any federal laws as far as I know. In my understanding, it just created some more restrictions (can't apply for work, must carry registration papers) and gave police more power to find illegal immigrants. That should be fine in Arizona if they vote to pass it, which they did.

Also, why did the Supreme Court leave the 1st provision and strike down the other 3? This I really don't understand. Doesn't the 1st provision violate the Supremacy Clause if the others do? Someone explain this to me.

I like the first 3 provisions of the bill. Requiring police to check the immigration status of everyone they stop eliminates racial profiling. Requiring illegal aliens to carry their papers is simple and I imagine gives some legal ground on which we can deport some illegals. Taking away the illegals' right to work allows Arizona to prosecute illegals who come here to find a job which I imagine is the vast majority.

But I don't support the last provision. It gives police the right to stop anyone they think has committed a crime that would make them removable from the US (presumably coming here illegally). In theory, this would be a great law. Police would think that a certain person is an illegal immigrant for some reason or another and then would have the ability to detain that person until they receive information on their immigration status. But I imagine this provision could quickly turn sour. Give police the ability to arrest people just because they have a hunch that they came here illegally. They could arrest me, if I happened to be driving through Arizona, and give no reason except that they think they have probable cause that I did something that would warrant my removal from the US. Then, only when they found that I have done nothing that warrants such action, they would have to let me go. Basically, my bone to pick with this last provision is that it gives too much power to police officers. I don't think they should be able to arrest someone simply because they think that person has done something warranting their removal from the US. Anyone well-versed in constitutional law want to give me a clause that I could cite that would make this provision unconstitutional? Please?

But then again, the Arizona state legislature passed the bill, the governor signed it into law, all by lawful process. I'm just mad that the Court ruled the way it did. I'm a fan of the individual states, not so much the federal government. Basically I wish they had ruled in favor of states' rights to make their own laws if the states feel the federal laws insufficient.

I did some more research on immigration to see if I could come up with a good solution to the problem. Expect another post about that soon. It's got more data and is pretty informative (at least it was for me). I'm gonna go see if I can find it. Thanks for reading! Comment below so we can get some good dialogue going!