Making an Effective Law Ineffective

On Monday June 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling on Arizona’s Senate bill 1070 (1) (2).  The decision was a split decision with the court upholding the main tenant of the legislation while rejecting other components of the legislation.  The question to be asked is with the rejection of certain components of the law while upholding it’s main point, does this law remain effective. 

For a piece of legislation to be effective, it must contain three components

1.      Sound legal crafting by the legislature – this includes not only insuring the bill’s wording is constitutional but also insuring the legislature follows the rules governing them when crafting the legislation.

2.     The law must be constitutional – this insures the main tenants of the law are upheld should the legislation be tested in a court of law such as the US Supreme Court.

3.     The law must be enforceable – this means that law enforcement officials must be able to understand the legislation and given the tools necessary to enforce it.

Arizona Senate bill 1070 is effective as written by the Arizona Senate. 

1.      The legislation is constitutional – Arizona Senate bill 1070 does not override Federal legislation but only gives Arizona law enforcement the tools it needs to assist federal officials in enforcing federal laws.

2.     The law remains constitutional – Since the main tenant of the law, allowing law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of someone lawfully detained, for something other than the violation of immigration laws. (3)

3.     Gives law enforcement the tools they need to enforce the law – Section 6 allows law enforcement to “make warrantless arrests if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect is in the country illegally.  The person is then turned over to federal immigration authorities to deal with.”  (4) Section 4 requires illegal immigrants to carry alien registration documentation on them at all times.  (4)  Anyone who has done any international travel is aware that they are required to have their passport on them at all times, so this is not an unusual request for people in foreign countries.  Section 5C says, “Present aliens can’t knowingly apply for, solicit, or do work in Arizona.”  (4). This section is to insure citizens of the US living in Arizona have preference when applying for a job.  In this sluggish economy this section is very important. 

However, the US Supreme Court ruling removed sections 4, 5C and 6.  This means that once Arizona law enforcement officials have checked someone’s immigration status, they are powerless to do anything else except alert ICE that they have detained an illegal alien.  However, the Obama administration further restricted Arizona law enforcement officers by stating, “unless the illegal in question has committed a felony, they aren’t interested in hearing from Arizona law enforcement.”  (5)  This just reiterates the reason Arizona crafted this legislation in the first place, the failure of the Feds to carry out their constitutional duty of protecting Arizona’s border with Mexico. 

To add insult to injury, the Federal Department of Justice set up a hotline where parties feeling their civil rights were violated by the implementation of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 can call or email in their complaint.(6)  This means that Arizona not only cannot enforce its legislation, but must now face endless frivolous lawsuits. 

Mitt Romney must defeat Obama in the November 2012 election to put an end to the White House’s selective enforcement of laws to fit its political agenda.  He must vow to use federal officials to assist states like Arizona who face an invasion of illegal aliens from south of the border.  This is all that the State of Arizona was asking the Federal Government to do. 

1. State of Arizona Senate. Senate Bill 1070. azleg.gov. [Online] State of Arizona, 2010. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf.

2. US Supreme Court. Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law. nytimes.com. [Online] The New York Tomes, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/26/us/scotus-immigrationlaw.html?smid=tw-nytimes.

3. Malcolm, John G. Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws/.

4. Shapiro, Ben. AZ IMMIGRATION DECISION DISASTER FOR AMERICANS, WIN FOR OBAMA. breitbart.com. [Online] Brietbart.com, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/25/AZ-immigration-decision-disaster-for-conservatives-states.

5. Levin, Mark. Mark Levin: “we now have de facto amnesty in Arizona”. frontlines2011.blogspot.com. [Online] Front Lines, June 26, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://frontlines2011.blogspot.com/2012/06/mark-levin-we-now-have-de-facto-amnesty.html.

6. Susteren, Greta Van. DOJ sets up a hotline — and it is directed RIGHT AT ARIZONA! gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com. [Online] Fox News, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/25/doj-sets-up-a-hotline-and-it-is-directed-right-at-arizona/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnewsinsider%2Fgretawire+%28Gretawire%29.