Why SB1070 will be affirmed as law
The federal appeals court rejection of portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law didn’t shock anyone.Opponents called it a validation of their position. Backers, including state Sen. Russell Pearce, called it predictable given the “liberal makeup” of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The effect of the ruling is to retain the legal delay of some portions of the SB1070 law, including provisions requiring the carrying of alien registration papers. The Monday ruling affirmed an earlier ruling by a federal district court judge.The ruling also sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to look at the case, which is loaded with emotion on all sides.
It is interesting two levels of federal court have focused on the conflict between state and federal law in the case. They each have given the nod to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which declares federal law trumps state law. It’s been upheld numerous times by the high court.A recurring theme of the appeals court explanations is the necessity for the federal government, not the individual states, to make foreign policy. If only the issue were that simple.
In truth, SB1070 doesn’t change immigration law. It doesn’t say who gets to come into the country or set the qualifications for remaining. In that sense, Arizona isn’t creating immigration law. It is only enforcing it, albeit at an intensified level.
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 