Taking sides on Arizona's immigration law - Omaha.com
Published Monday, April 23, 2012 at 12:01 am / Updated at 7:03 am
Taking sides on Arizona's immigration law

Twenty-seven states have joined friend-of-the-court briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court case on Arizona's anti-immigration law.

Supporting Arizona
>> Alabama
>> Florida
>> Georgia
>> Idaho
>> Indiana
>> Kansas
>> Louisiana
>> Michigan
>> Nebraska
>> Oklahoma
>> Pennsylvania
>> South Carolina
>> South Dakota
>> Virginia
>> West Virginia
>> Wyoming
Opposing Arizona
>> California
>> Connecticut
>> Hawaii
>> Illinois
>> Iowa
>> Maryland
>> Massachusetts
>> New York
>> Oregon
>> Rhode Island
>> Vermont
Source: American Bar Association

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court case over Arizona's latest anti-immigration law, scheduled for a hearing Wednesday, hinges largely on the question of where states' power over immigration ends and federal power begins.

But in a sign of how contentious the case is, several states are supporting the federal government instead of Arizona.

Eleven states, including Iowa, all represented by Democratic attorneys general, warned the justices that Arizona's law reached too far and undermined the immigration policy of the United States.

However much Arizona may disagree with federal policies on immigration enforcement, they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief, "it cannot operate its own unilateral removal policy outside of any federal oversight."

The case, Arizona v. United States, centers on a law passed by Arizona lawmakers two years ago, known as Senate Bill 1070.

The measure requires local police to check the immigration status of an individual during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" when they have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally.

The Obama administration sued to block the law, and most of the law is on hold during the appeal.

Sixteen states, including Nebraska, support Arizona's position. Of those, all but West Virginia are represented by Republican attorneys general.

They say that Arizona's law does not interfere with federal immigration policies, and, in fact, the measure helps the federal government enforce its own immigration laws.

"The police powers of a state include the authority to arrest for federal crimes, a prerogative derived from the state's own sovereign authority," the supporters wrote. "Consistent with the principle of dual sovereignty, the states may exercise this power to direct the police to arrest persons who violate federal immigration laws."

The stakes for both camps are clear. Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina backed Arizona and have laws similar to Arizona's. The fate of their laws, along with one in Utah, will likely depend on the high court's decision.

On the other side, states such as California and New York say they will suffer if the Arizona law stands, because federal agents would be tied up in Arizona and immigrants would flee to more friendly states.

The states opposing Arizona's law urged the justices to issue a "narrow" ruling that would strike down Arizona's law without further reducing states' rights.

Like many of the law's opponents, the Democratic attorneys general say the Arizona law undermines the federal government's ability to create a nationwide immigration policy.

"Congress has carefully regulated not only who may be removed from the United States, but how such individuals should be identified, apprehended and detained," they argued.

In other words, even if Arizona's police officers enforce federal law, the way they do so could be significantly different from the way the federal government's own agents carry it out.

The Obama administration, for instance, recently issued guidance on how to prioritize immigration cases. The memo tells federal agents to weigh an immigrant's standing in the community, time in the United States, criminal history and other factors when deciding whether to pursue deportation. But Arizona's law does not take those factors into account.

The uneven enforcement is not just a matter of uniform national policy, the Democratic attorneys general wrote. It is a matter of the federal government treating states differently.

They say an aggressive approach "threatens to divert" federal resources from other states by "monopolizing federal attention." The law would require police to call federal immigration authorities more often, whether to check on a suspect's status or to pick up a suspect for deportation proceedings.

In fact, a group of 42 former state attorneys general said just handling the new requests from Arizona would increase the yearly workload of federal officials who verify the immigration status of criminal suspects by 20 percent nationally.

That, they said, would lead to longer wait times for police in other states that need to run federal immigration checks, too.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, criticized fellow state governments for taking sides against Arizona. She noted that the influx of immigrants into Arizona started when the federal government started cracking down on illegal border crossings in California and Texas, making the relatively unguarded Arizona desert a more attractive spot to cross.

"States joining California in opposing Arizona in this fight may think they have little at stake," she said in a statement, noting that several of the states opposing Arizona were far from the U.S.-Mexico border. "But this debate is not just about illegal immigration. It is about every state's authority and obligation to act in the best interest and welfare of its citizens."

Arizona, in its high court brief, says it does not need explicit permission from the federal government to enact immigration-related laws.

"Unless and until Congress expressly forecloses such efforts, Arizona has the inherent authority to add its own resources to the enforcement of federal law," Arizona's lawyers wrote.

Crack ring's leaders join others in prison as a result of Operation Purple Haze
Omahan charged in fatal shooting in Benson neighborhood
High court denies death row appeal of cult leader convicted of murder
State Department moves to delay Keystone XL pipeline decision
Haze in area comes from Kansas, Oklahoma
Man taken into custody in domestic dispute
Omaha judge reprimanded for intervening in peer attorney's DUI case
Intoxicated man with pellet gun climbs billboard's scaffold; is arrested
Police seek public's help in finding an armed man
Saturday forecast opens window for gardening; Easter egg hunts look iffy on Sunday
Database: How much did Medicare pay your doctor?
Last day of 2014 Legislature: Praise, passage of a last few bills and more on mountain lions
New public employee pay data: Douglas, Lancaster, Sarpy Counties, plus utilities
A voice of experience: Ex-gang member helps lead fight against Omaha violence
Church is pressing its case for old Temple Israel site
OPPD board holding public forum, open house May 7
The thrill of the skill: Omaha hosts statewide contest for students of the trades
A recap of what got done — and what didn't — in the 2014 legislative session
When judge asks, Nikko Jenkins says ‘I killed them’
Nancy's Almanac, April 17, 2014: Trees save money
'The war is not over,' Chambers says, but legislative session about is
PAC funded by Senate candidate Ben Sasse's great-uncle releases Shane Osborn attack ad
Teen killed at Gallagher Park was shot in head as he sat in SUV, friend who was wounded says
New UNO center strengthens ties between campus, community
Threat found in Millard West bathroom deemed 'not credible'
< >
Breaking Brad: Stuck in a claw machine? You get no Easter candy
I know of one kid in Lincoln who will be receiving a lump of coal from the Easter Bunny, just as soon as he's extricated from that bowling alley claw machine.
Breaking Brad: Mountain lion season's over, but the bunny's fair game!
Thursday was the last day of a Nebraska Legislature session. Before leaving town, legislators passed a bill to hold a lottery to hunt the Easter Bunny.
Breaking Brad: At least my kid never got stuck inside a claw machine
We need a new rule in Lincoln. If your kid is discovered inside the claw machine at a bowling alley, you are forever barred from being nominated for "Mother of the Year."
Breaking Brad: How many MECA board members can we put in a luxury suite?
As a stunt at the Blue Man Group show, MECA board members are going to see how many people they can stuff into one luxury suite.
Kelly: Creighton's McDermotts put good faces on an Omaha tradition
A comical roast Wednesday night in Omaha brought fans of Creighton basketball laughter by the bucketful. This time it was McJokes, not McBuckets, that entertained the Bluejay crowd.
Deadline Deal thumbnail
The Jaipur in Rockbrook Village
Half Off Fine Indian Cuisine & Drinks! $15 for Dinner, or $7 for Lunch
Buy Now
< >
Omaha World-Herald Contests
Enter for a chance to win great prizes.
OWH Store: Buy photos, books and articles
Buy photos, books and articles
Travel Snaps Photo
Going on Vacation? Take the Omaha World-Herald with you and you could the next Travel Snaps winner.
Click here to donate to Goodfellows
The 2011 Goodfellows fund drive provided holiday meals to nearly 5,000 families and their children, and raised more than $500,000 to help families in crisis year round.
Want to get World-Herald stories sent directly to your home or work computer? Sign up for Omaha.com's News Alerts and you will receive e-mails with the day's top stories.
Can't find what you need? Click here for site map »