Thread: Supreme Court’s SB 1070 ruling to have national ramifications

Luke Witman

Tucson Immigration Examiner
January 1, 2012


The Supreme Court is set to hear Arizona's appeal of the current injunction issued against several provisions of SB 1070 this spring.

On December 22, a federal judge in Charleston ruled to block several key provisions of South Carolina’s new immigration law SB 20. The contentious provisions blocked by Judge Richard M. Gergel, include that which requires state and local law enforcement to check the legal residency status of all those they encounter whom they suspect to be undocumented, as well as provisions that make it a crime to knowingly harbor or transport undocumented immigrants. According to Gergel’s ruling, these provisions, which were to go into effect on the first of the year, infringe on the federal government’s exclusive authority to legislate the field of immigration.


South Carolina marks the most recent in a long line of states that have had all or parts of their immigration laws struck down on constitutional grounds. Thus far, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Utah have all had state immigration laws struck down. However, there could be a dramatic turn in federal courts’ approach to state immigration laws in 2012, as this spring the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear Arizona’s appeal against the current injunction issued against several provisions of its anti-immigrant law SB 1070.


Although thus far, federal courts have ruled to block state immigration laws in virtually every case, and have continuously come down against states’ appeals of these rulings, experts are predicting that the Supreme Court could approach the issue differently when Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer presents her state’s appeal this year. Already the Supreme Court has upheld an Arizona law making it a crime to knowingly employ an undocumented immigrant. And legal experts say that the Supreme Court is likely to find that states do in fact have the authority to police immigration within their own borders.


One reason that many are expecting to see that SB 1070 injunction lifted is because Justice Elaine Kagan has recused herself from the case, due to her former position as solicitor general under the Obama administration. Kagan was one of the justices that dissented in the earlier case regarding Arizona’s right to criminalize the employment of undocumented immigration. If all those who voted in favor of that law similarly vote in favor of SB 1070, the injunction will easily be overturned.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the SB 1070 appeal will surely have far reaching ramifications, even beyond Arizona’s borders. If the justices find that Arizona has the right to legislate immigration as it sees fit, this will open the door for the repeal of injunctions already in place in Alabama, South Carolina and elsewhere, and it will no doubt influence many states who have not yet implemented Arizona-style immigration laws to move forward in doing so.
==========================
Luke Witman is an Arizona resident who is passionate about social, political and environmental issues affecting the U.S.-Mexico border region. A recent graduate student with a Master's Degree in Latin American Studies, Luke's academic work focuses on immigration theory and policy. Contact him at Lucas.Witman@yahoo.com.

http://www.examiner.com/immigration-...on/luke-witman

There is no question that states have the inherent constitutional authority to enforce US immigration laws as well as their own laws so long as none violate any federal law. Enforcing US immigration law and every other federal law of our land has always been the rights if not the obligations of states by both their courts and law enforcement officials as well as the citizens and legal residents of those states. To claim otherwise would reverse the law-abiding expectation of our states that comprise our nation. We are a Republic, with the United States the sum of the 50 equal independent parts, not a nation-state of 50 dependent subordinate subsets.

Yes, states have over the years in trade for federal dollars handed-off a substantial amount of their independence, but that has not changed their independence under the Constitution nor in any manner altered their rights and powers reserved by both Amendments 9 and 10 to the US Constitution. The absurdity of a federal government suing states for enforcing federal law is just beyond the pale of authoritarian stupidity.

Furthermore with regard to immigration specifically, the Constitution clearly conveys states rights to handle their own immigration with the sole exception that the federal government after 1808 may prohibit immigration which means the federal government can force state to stop immigrating aliens into its territory but it clearly can not stop a state from stopping immigration of aliens into its territory and most certainly not stop them from doing it in a manner that is consistent with federal immigration law.