In a nutshell, the feds charge that Arizona's law, though patterned after federal law, interferes with overall federal immigration policy, which balances restricting illegal immigration influx along with numerous other policy goals--such as foreign policy & "humanitarian" goals. (Never mind that what the Justice Department calls "carefully considered" federal policy is the usual legislative mess.) The government also submitted a 53-page memorandum of law in support of its complaint; the legal memo alleges numerous conflicts between Arizona's law and various federal regulatory schemes.
Not mentioned by the feds is that Phoenix is now the number two kidnap capital in the world, after Mexico City. Needless to say, this is in large measure due to illegals and the Mexican drug wars moving northward. The government's legal memo asserts that Arizona seeks to set immigration policy, and anticipates Arizona's main counter-argument: citing state "police power" to protect its citizens:
No mechanical test defines the limit of state power to promulgate, under their police powers, regulations incidentally affecting immigration. But at a minimum, a state is generally barred from enacting a “comprehensive scheme” for immigration...
According to the statute’s statement of “intent,” S.B. 1070 is not meant to exercise traditional state police powers but rather seeks to establish an Arizona-specific immigration “public policy.” S.B. 1070 § 1. (The SB 1070 reference is to the first section of Arizona's immigration law.)
No mention was made in the filings of prospective discriminatory application of laws. This cannot be made until after the law takes effect on July 29, which the Court may bar. But the Justice Department's legal memo alleges imminent burden on those lawfully present as well:
Lawfully present individuals will inevitably be swept within Section 2’s broad “reasonable suspicion” provision and subject to the state’s inquisitorial burdens. While Section 2 is triggered by an officer’s “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence, “the requirement of reasonable suspicion is not a requirement of absolute certainty,” N.J. v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 346 (1985), meaning that many lawful aliens will be directly subjected to Section 2.22 What is more, many factors used to support a “reasonable suspicion” that an alien is unlawfully present could also apply to lawfully present aliens.
The Justice Department's legal memorandum archly concludes that "the burden on Arizona from a preliminary injunction would be modest." (The injunction, if granted by the trial judge, would bar enforcement of the law throughout the litigation.
Arizona (GOP) Governor Jan Brewer issued a 2-page Statement on the lawsuit. Her most salient point is that the feds ignore "sanctuary" violators--cities that deliberately refuse to enforce federal immigration law:
The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
This point will not help the feds make their case in court.
Bottom Line. The State of Arizona will now file an answer to the complaint. The State likely will consider its interest in curbing serious crimes driven by illegal immigration to be more than merely "modest."
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Economy, Conservative Politics
Comments