The Arizona Immigration Law: What It Actually Does, and Why It Is Constitutional:

Published on December 3, 2010

Updated on 4/19/2011 for research.

by Kris Kobach, D.Phil., J.D.

Lecture #1173

Abstract: America has arrived at a dangerous, unpreceÂ*dented moment: an Administration is attacking a state that is simply trying to help the federal government restore the rule of law. In addition to partisan mischaracÂ*terizations of S.B. 1070, observes Professor Kris Kobach, the Eric Holder Justice Department launched an unpreceÂ*dented and unwarranted lawsuit that has shattered the balance between the federal government and the states, as well as the balance between executive and congressional power, through its distortion of preemption doctrine. A federal district judge has already embraced the Justice Department’s argument without any evident awareness of how the argument breaches constitutional boundaries. Consequently, concludes Kobach, America’s only hope is that the appellate courts will realize just what is at stake, and uphold S.B. 1070 on constitutional grounds.

Arizona’s S.B. 10701 began as a commonsense law to improve immigration law enforcement and faciliÂ*tate cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, but the uproar that followed has become a case study in liberal dissembling and execÂ*utive overreach. Few laws have been so grossly misÂ*characterized by so many leaders on the Left. From President Barack Obama on down, partisans rushed to the microphone to hyperventilate about an impending police state in Arizona. Then the Eric Holder Justice Department launched an unpreceÂ*dented and unwarranted lawsuit that has shattered the balance between the federal government and the states, as well as the balance between executive and congressional power. Both the criticism and the lawsuit are without basis.[1]

Mischaracterizations of S.B. 1070

The criticism from the Left was based upon three fundamental misrepresentations of what S.B. 1070 actually does.

[b]First, and most outrageously, critics incorrectly claimed that the law would promote racial profilÂ*ing. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D–AZ) made this claim, along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D–IL), Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D–DC), and others. More surprisÂ*ing, however, was the commentary from the counÂ*try’s top attorney. Attorney General Eric Holder sternly warned the nation on Meet the Press that the law “has the possibility of leading to racial profilÂ*ing.â€