There has been much hullabaloo about SB 1070, Arizona’s new immigration law. And now, the fight has shifted from the rally lines to the court room. On Tuesday, July 6, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona on the grounds that SB 1070 "interferes with the federal governments authority to set and enforce immigration policy," according to a department press release.
While I am abhorred that our state would pass something as repulsive as SB 1070, the Justice Department should not have sued Arizona. The time and energy of federal officials should be spent drafting legislation that reforms our nation’s immigration system.
Three Arizona House Democrats, Reps. Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick urged the Justice Department and Obama’s administration to abandon any plans of a lawsuit.
According to The Arizona Republic, Mitchell sent a letter to Obama explaining his position.
"[A lawsuit] will embolden those on all sides who prefer to grandstand and score political points instead of working toward real solutions. Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for real help from Washington," Mitchell wrote.
Mitchell, who represents Tempe in Congress, makes a strong and practical case. A lawsuit is more of a political statement than a legislative one.
Thanks to our SB 1070, immigration is back in the public eye. Now is the perfect time to let our elected officials draft immigration legislation that makes it harder to enter the country illegally and allows a path to citizenship for those who are already here illegally.
Intense public scrutiny of the legislation would make it stronger and reflect America’s core values of acceptance and prosperity.
There is skepticism that comprehensive immigration reform would not be able to break through the eternal Republican filibuster in the Senate. Such a procedural move would sacrifice an opportunity for real change. A short-term political gain does not necessarily translate into leadership.
In the lawsuit, the U.S. Justice Department makes the case that immigration is a federal, not state, matter. Surprisingly, this is not uncharted territory.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1941 that a Pennsylvania state immigration law was unconstitutional. The law was similar to Arizona’s – all non-citizen 18 years and older had to register with the state government annually and carry an alien-registration card. If asked to reproduce it by state officials, the individual was lawfully required to show his or her card. Someone without a card could be detained.
While history is on the federal government's side, the lawsuit is truly a waste of time and resources, not to mention a scare tactic to keep other state's from passing similar laws. Reforming our immigration system has been stalled long enough. A win in court won't change the fact that the system is broken.
Andrew can be reached at andrew.hedlund@asu.edu
