USA/FILE: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Arizona's tough, new immigration laws stray too far into the federal government's authority to regulate the nation's borders

Record ID: 590955

  • Title: USA/FILE: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Arizona's tough, new immigration laws stray too far into the federal government's authority to regulate the nation's borders
  • Date: 25th April 2012
  • Summary: WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES (APRIL 23, 2012) (REUTERS) STEVE CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WORKING ON COMPUTER (SOUNDBITE) (English) STEVE CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH FOR THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WHICH ADVOCATES MORE RESTRICTIVE IMMIGRATION LAWS, SAYING: "To have the federal government say we only do federal law and we might not even be enforcing this federal law, but you can't take up the slack, which is what the Administration is essentially arguing, seems very problematic to me. It's problematic on constitutional grounds and political and practical grounds because if a law exists, and it is legitimate, either we change it to something else or we enforce it. We don't say we are going to have it and it is going to be meaningless because the foundation of any democratic republic is the rule of law. So if the law is, you have to carry your immigration documents and if you are in the country illegally, you should go home under most circumstances, then should be what is enforced at the federal, at the state and at the local level."
  • Embargoed: 10th May 2012 13:00
  • Keywords:
  • Location: Usa
  • Country: USA
  • Topics: Crime / Law Enforcement
  • Reuters ID: LVAE5ZWYXCSLCV7QDEVPXP7JTULN
  • Story Text: A clash over immigration law will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 25), pitting the state of Arizona against U.S. President Barack Obama in a case with election-year political ramifications for him and Republican rival Mitt Romney.
    In its second-biggest case this term, the court -- fresh from hearing the Obama healthcare overhaul case -- will consider whether a tough Arizona immigration crackdown strayed too far into the federal government's powers.
    A pro-Arizona decision would be a legal and political setback for Obama, who has criticized the state's law and vowed to push for immigration legislation if re-elected on November 6.
    A decision against Arizona would deal a blow to Romney, who has said the government should drop its challenge of the law.
    "The balance of power between the federal government and the state government is a big issue currently in American politics, and it will probably be a featured issue in the presidential campaigns," said Ben Winograd, a staff attorney at the American Immigration Council, an organization favoring looser immigration laws.
    "With respect to immigration, allowing states to be the primary enforcers of federal immigration law would from a civil rights perspective have huge ramifications. All of a sudden, every traffic stop that is conducted by a local officer and involves someone who arguably looks or sounds like an immigrant could result in an extended detention and even possibly incarceration," he said.
    Dissatified with what it considered inadequate federal enforcement, Arizona, which shares its southern border with Mexico, passed an controversial immogration law two years ago. The Arizona law requires police to check the immigration status of anyone detained and suspected of being in the country illegally.
    At issue in the case is whether the authority of the federal government supercedes regulations put forth by the state, particularly in an areas of jurisdiction -- in this case, immigration -- that have been traditional been within the purview of the federal government.
    Other parts of the Arizona law require immigrants to carry their papers at all times; ban illegal immigrants from soliciting for work in public places; and allows police to arrest immigrants without a warrant if an officer believes they have committed a crime that would make them deportable.
    Steve Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization favoring more restrictive immigration laws.
    "If the law is, you have to carry your immigration documents and if you are in the country illegally you should go home under most circumstances, then that's should be what is enforced at the federal, at the state and at the local level," he said.
    A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court earlier ruled for the Obama administration and blocked all four parts of the Arizona law from taking effect.
    Five other states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- have followed Arizona's lead and adopted similar laws, parts of which could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.
    The case this week will be heard by eight of the nine Supreme Court members. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, apparently because she worked on the case in her previous job as Obama's solicitor general. In the event the court is evenly divided on the case, the appeals court ruling for the federal government would be affirmed.
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register