DoJ Lawsuit Violates 10th Amendment
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder pronounced that the Department of Justice would file suit against Arizona over its recently-approved immigration legislation. The Department of Justice contends that the Arizona immigration legislation promotes racial profiling and impedes the federal government’s ability to establish a national legislative agenda.
Since the lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2010, several states including New Mexico and Florida have fought against the lawsuit and have emphatically supported the Arizona immigration legislation. The most recent CBS News poll, conducted on July 13, 2010, shows that a sizable percentage of Americans, 57%, support the Arizona immigration legislation. This lawsuit will adversely affect President Obama and the Democratic Party in the 2010 midterm elections. The majority of Americans recognize that this legislation overextends federal authority and violates the 10th Amendment.
The Department of Justice contends that the Constitution and federal law prohibit the development of state-initiated immigration legislation. This is simply false, as the 10th Amendment explicitly provides states with powers not granted to the federal government. Despite the fact that the establishment of immigration legislation lies within the jurisdiction of the federal government, states are not prohibited from instigating policies in the absence of adequate federal law. The Department of Justice’s lawsuit is an attempt to prevent other states from initiating similar legislation. In fact, the Department of Justice, in the aforementioned brief, maintains that this lawsuit will hamstring other states from creating analogous legislation within their sovereign boundaries. President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and other leading Democratic politicians feel that if a spate of similar legislation is passed at the state level, their authority on this issue will dissipate. The lawsuit was filed merely to retain federal supremacy over lawmaking and to nullify federalism purely for liberal ideological purposes.
The Arizona immigration legislation, also known as S.B. 1070, the “Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is comprised of a myriad of measures which seek to diminish illegal immigration and its harmful effects on the American economy. The most contentious provisions of S.B. 1070 are as follows. State and local law enforcement officials are barred from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Law enforcement officials, when making a lawful stop or arrest for another violation, must make a reasonable attempt to determine the citizen’s immigration status where reasonable suspicion exists that the individual is not a legal resident. Employees are required to preserve employee eligibility for at least three years or for the duration of employment. Finally, the willful failure to complete or carry immigration registration documents constitutes a misdemeanor offense. None of these provisions incites racial intolerance or bigotry, as many liberal polemicists and politicians foolishly assert. Rather, S.B. 1070 merely enforces existing immigration policy while protecting the rights of every Arizona citizen. During the drafting of the legislation, lawmakers from both parties convened to forge the specific language of the legislation. In so doing, they drafted a piece of legislation whose verbiage is race-neutral.
The lawsuit is a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. When brought before a federal court, it should be immediately struck down because it prohibits states from initiating legislation within their sovereign borders. Arizona is entitled to institute legislation that it deems essential to protecting the well-being of its citizens.
Conversely, liberal scholars and members of the Obama administration contend that the authority to enact and enforce immigration laws resides solely with the federal government. Their argument is moot and inaccurate. The Department of Justice’s lawsuit violates the doctrines of federalism, states’ rights, and devolution. The federal government should willingly transfer power to the state governments in this matter in order to ensure that the actions taken benefit the citizens of the specific states involved.
The state of Arizona has commenced what is rapidly becoming a nationwide movement, advancing legislation that benefits the interests of individual states in the absence of coherent federal law. The federal government’s lack of enforcement has prompted Arizona to act. In the months ahead, it is likely that other states will implement legislation mirroring that of S.B. 1070. If the federal government’s lawsuit is deemed unconstitutional, federalism and states’ rights will be reconditioned. It is likely that immigration reform will be a focal point of the 2010 midterm elections.
The National section of the Weekly Political Forecast is written by PAI’s Political Analyst.
