The federal suit against SB1070
Posted by: Donna
Political calculations and objections from Arizona’s Democratic politicians aside, it seems to me that the Obama administration has no choice but to sue Arizona. (Full text of the lawsuit here.) The federal government occupies the field where immigration law is concerned and cannot allow states to go around preempting federal law and violating the Supremacy Clause no matter how popular something is or how strongly people feel about it. If you care about the Constitution then you have to respect its basic tenets.
That said, I wish the lawsuit made a stronger case against SB1070 based on the way it will undoubtedly lead to racial profiling. No matter how hard proponents deny it, the law clearly targets Hispanics in intent, if not in word. Many of the Jim Crow laws of the South didn’t specifically mention race but they were still ultimately found to be unjust and discriminatory by the Supreme Court. With SB1070, there’s no possible way to guarantee that citizens and legal residents will be protected from harassment given the large number of Hispanic residents (and others who may appear Hispanic, like Native Americans) in Arizona. The lawsuit does touch on the issue – It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute – but it doesn’t make a strong and specific statement that it’s de facto racial discrimination.
This sort of parallels what I’ve long seen as a major weakness with both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (which overturned a ban on contraception for married couples). The courts found that there was an implied right to privacy in the Constitution that protected a woman’s right to medical privacy and a couple’s right to marital privacy (subsequent court decisions overturned bans on contraception for unmarried people). I wholeheartedly agree with the privacy argument, but I wish that Griswold and Roe had also been decided on the basis of equal protection under the law for women. Bans and restrictions on abortion and contraception place an undue burden on women of childbearing age that no other group must endure. Had the ability to control reproduction been enshrined into law as a basic civil right for women 40 years ago we may not have seen the many encroachments on access to abortion and contraception that we’ve been seeing all these years.
Of course, as a practical matter you do have to consider the political environment in which you’re operating. The attorneys who argued Griswold and Roe probably figured the privacy argument had the best likelihood of succeeding and it got them to their goal in the end. The current Department of Justice may be reticent to make an overt racial discrimination objection to SB1070 because Obama’s detractors might seize upon it as “political correctness” and undermine their case in the public. And as several lawyer bloggers have pointed out this morning, the preemption case is more airtight and, if it prevails, will nip other states’ attempts to pass similar laws to SB1070 in the bud. That sounds right and in the end I guess I have to be content with flawed* lawsuits that stop really bad laws.
*Perhaps not the best descriptor. Maybe “incomplete” is more accurate.
16 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
[...] more: Democratic Diva » The federal suit against SB1070 Tags: arizona, federal-government, field, lawsuit, obama, occupies-the-field, the-lawsuit Leave a [...]
The question is….,
“What does Pearce, and Kobach have on the back burners, in the event this law gets overturned??”
“When do they plan on introducing the direct challenge to the 14th amendment, bill??”
“Will this state ever resume its normalcy??”
Oh damn, Brewer, Arpaio and Pearce make me embarrassed to say I’m from Az!!
Regards,
Truth08
P/S Reminds me of when Mecham repealed MLK day…., very sad, but mostly embarrassed..
Well, based on the fact SCOTUS wants to rule on stuff not before it, maybe…nah!
While I agree this pile is definetly in violation of the Supremacy Clause, it will likely be tied up in Federal Court for years. Only a federal injunction can stop it for this case.
I’m hoping the older local cases can can get a state court injunction based on it being overly ambigous.
..state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
That one makes my head hurt.
A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws
Does the Supremacy Clause mean I can sue Gov (which way is the wind blowing today?) Brewer in court?
Can I sue individual officers? The word “official” clouds the waters. Later says individual officers will have court costs covered if AGENCY sued.
1. “Solicit” means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed
Dang, I missed the nodding and gesturing class. Of course when it comes to reasonable…
Sorry, but cat can’t help it.
Beware you liburals, or my schnoopsie-pooh will smite you with his mytee sward!
This whole thing would not have even happened if we did not have a President who selectively enforces the laws of the Republic. He refuses to enforce the law. He wants Amnesty for illegals. He knows that you make 15 million illegals legal, another 15 million will come and then another. It will never stop.
Just the way our glorious leader ran the economy into the ground and shifted the blame, he caused this crisis and blamed Arizona.
Come on, stop bashing Bush for the one sensible thing he ever espoused Alan.
Appleblossom FTW!
The Bush administration dramatically decreased Federal investigations and prosecutions against illegal employers. His policy was wink-and-nudge to the businesses, while pretending to be distraught over immigration reform not passing Congress. But why would Bush care that immigration reform failed, considering that the biggest employers of undocumented workers are happy with the status quo? Desperately poor, scared, politically neutered workers who will not complain? What’s the downside?
Wow! We have the paid right wing trolls here now. You’ve made the big time when someone bothers to spout the right wing lies in response to your posts.
Thanks for the laughs, Alan. Always nice to read a little idiocy in the morning to get my work day off to a good start. Now when I’m frustrated with someone during my day I can think, “it could be worse, I could be dealing with that fool who thinks President Obama is responsible for the Cheney Recession”……
Susan,
You mean I get paid. Where do I collect? By the way, who do I work for? I’m just attracted to Mendacity. Someone has to tell you the truth. If you only talk among yourselves you will be shocked when the idiot you put into the White House goes the way of Mr. Peanut, Jimmy Carter .
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10enforce.html?_r=1&hp
Hmmm, that idiot in the White House is actually getting to the root of the illegal immigration problem while being quietly effective at it.
Appleblossom,
I commend President Obama for his baby step in handling the illegal immigration problem. Our beloved President is great at putting people out of work and putting them on public assistance.
When he actually makes progress in stemming the flood of illegal immigrants coming through the Southern borders, so that border States do not feel abandoned by their President, I will sing his praises. :)
Alan, we both know that is nonsense.
Appleblossom,
” Alan, we both know that is nonsense ”
So you think I would treat President Obama like you probably treated President Bush, never give him credit for anything ?
I praised Obama for the Afghanistan surge, though perhaps not here. I only qualified it with, “what took so long and why not 40,000?”
You think that because You are blinded by ideology, I am also.
You might want reread that rejoinder I wrote up there-I did point out that President Bush did something sensible while in office.
Or are you too busy trying to come up with reasons to bash the President while claiming to praise him?
[...] [...]