Arizona Immigration Law Debate: Students Speak Out

Ramon Lopez: Immigration Must Be Legal, Laws Must Be Enforced

Following Arizona’s passing of a controversial immigration law, the Obama administration has filed suit against the state, claiming that the law violates the Constitution by granting powers to the states that must be reserved for the federal government.

The brief published by the Justice Department claims that “a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law” and that the Constitution does “not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.” However, once closely reviewed it seems as if these critiques hardly apply to the political and legal situation surrounding this newly passed law.

Although much maligned in the press, the Arizona illegal immigration bill is relatively tame; indeed, it closely mirrors federal laws concerning illegal immigration. The legislation allows state law enforcement officers to ask individuals who are already being questioned for unrelated criminal activities for documentation that proves legal residency in the United States, cracks down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and gives the people of Arizona the power to sue local and state agencies if they are not enforcing immigration laws.

The first two of these provisions already exist in federal immigration laws while the third was put in place to prevent “sanctuary cities” from ignoring established law. Currently there are thirty-one major US cities that forbid their law enforcement officers from questioning a criminal’s immigration status, including New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. By allowing the people to hold their representatives responsible for enforcing the laws that have been legally passed, Arizona has ensured that its own cities won’t be able to circumvent the law.

The only reason Arizona passed such a bill was because of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to enforce the laws currently on the books. Additionally, states are allowed to pass their own laws penalizing criminal activities as long as those laws are not in direct conflict with federal laws or the Constitution.

Arizona’s immigration law is reflective of our federal policy, meaning it is not in conflict with any federal laws, and the Supreme Court has already ruled in Muehler v. Mena that police do not need probable cause to inquire about an individual’s immigration status. In fact Rhode Island has a law that requires police officers to check people’s immigration status at traffic stops, something that goes further than Arizona’s newly passed law. Rhode Island’s immigration law was upheld this past February in Estrada v. Rhode Island, confirming the previous court’s ruling concerning the questioning of a person’s immigration status.

The suit brought against Arizona over its immigration law is nothing more than political grandstanding in order to energize the Democratic base for the 2010 elections. We should not be playing politics with an issue as important and sensitive as immigration, and rather than creating a straw man out of Arizona’s immigration bill the President should be enforcing our federal laws.

We are a nation of immigrants, and without immigration the United States would lose the vitality and energy that has characterized it since it’s founding. But such immigration must be legal and controlled, and only by demonstrating that we are a nation of laws can true immigration reform occur.