Issuu on Google+


LawCrossing Legal Daily News Feature

Arizona Immigration Law Debate Puts Fed v State Jurisdiction Center-stage The U.S. Supreme Court is going to sit in judgment this week over Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, and the ramifications are many. One of the political consequences could be that the judgment would influence the presidential race: If Arizona wins then Obama loses face and Romney would have cause to cheer, if Arizona loses, then the consequences would favor Obama. However, of far greater importance to the people of U.S. is how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the rights of Fed v State in the matter of lawmaking and implementation.


Arresting of illegal immigrants without a warrant if an officer suspects they have committed a crime making them liable for deportation

In the middle is the judicial system of the country, which time and again has tried to uphold the rule of law, and has found itself criticized by Mr. Obama

The key issue, of course, is the Latino vote bank

as an ‘unelected’ body nosing into the affairs of

which forms 16 percent of the present population of

legislatures. From healthcare, through federal authority

U.S. Romney is already not favored by Hispanic illegal

superseding state laws in medical marijuana, to the

immigrants, and Obama is all out against checking

present challenge to the rights of Arizona over its own

immigrant status, as the 11.5 million illegal immigrants

immigration laws, the Obama administration has time

can decide the presidency if they can manage to cast

and again sparked off the debate. The recent case in


the Supreme Court is of consequence because of this – the way the authority of Arizona is defined would

As Paul Clement, the attorney for Arizona says,

affect the working of many states that are similarly tied

“This is another federalism case. This is not all about

to the United States concept.

immigration. It’s really about the relationship between the federal government and the state government. It’s the norm that you have state officials enforcing federal

The Issues:

law.” Does federal immigration law pre-empt and bar the key A recent Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll already found that

provisions of Arizona’s law?

Americans generally support Arizona and are undecided about the Fed v State debate at the core of the case.

The provisions in question are:

The opinion poll found close to seventy percent of •

• •


Checking the immigration status of anyone

those surveyed favoring state laws that allow police

detained and suspected of being illegally in the

to check a person’s immigration status and criminalize


illegal immigrants working in the U.S.A. As usual, in

The requirement for immigrants to carry their

most regions of U.S. the debate has become a mindless

papers at all times

Democrat v Republican thing with partisans giving little

Banning illegal immigrants from soliciting work in

thought to the actual implications upon the institution

public places

of federal democracy.

Arizona Immigration Law Debate Puts Fed v State Jurisdiction Center-stage