The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law increases states’ dependence on the federal government. President Barack Obama says he is “pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law.”

Four provisions in the Arizona immigration law were in question, and the Supreme Court struck down three and upheld one. Specifically, sections 3, 5(C) and 6 were struck down, and section 2(B) was upheld. The Supreme Court argues sections 3, 5(C) and 6 were preempted by federal law.

First, this ruling has nothing to do with civil rights. The Supreme Court struck down nothing by citing the violation of someone’s rights. Second, this ruling is about federal power, and it expanded — or at least reaffirmed — federal power and states’ dependence on the federal government.

Section 3 of Arizona’s SB1070 makes “failure to comply with federal alien registration requirements a state misdemeanor,” according to the Supreme Court. In other words, Arizona wants to empower its state lawmen, giving them an always enforceable state immigration law that mirrors the federal law, so that even when the federal government decides not to enforce immigration law, there is still a deterrent to illegal immigration in Arizona.

The Supreme Court gives a number of reasons for striking down this section. In short, states cannot “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations” that “curtail or complement” federal law when doing so would have an effect on foreign relations, according to the ruling.

Further, the Supreme Court mentions section 3 would allow Arizona to “bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.”

In plain English, the Supreme Court reminds us that one, the federal government has the power to make immigration laws and not enforce them, and two, no state has the right to make up for this lack of enforcement. Now, in cases where the federal government decides to do nothing to enforce its immigration laws, the states can do nothing.

Section 5(C) says, “It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” Specifically, under SB1070, this type of violation is a state misdemeanor.

The Supreme Court blocked this as well. According to the Supreme Court, the federal government has a “comprehensive federal program regulating the employment of unauthorized aliens,” and Section 5(C) would interfere with this. So the court blocked Section 5(C) with the same reasoning used to block Section 3.

Section 6 gives Arizona law enforcement the power to arrest anyone without warrant if officers believe this person “has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” Regarding this, the Supreme Court has decided, “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”

Additionally, the court says that because only the federal government can determine if someone is deportable and because the federal government can use case-by-case discretion when determining which illegal immigrants to deport, a state law enforcement officer cannot know who is deportable, and therefore, state law enforcement officers cannot make arrests on this basis.

Section 2(B) is the only part of the Arizona law in question that the Supreme Court upheld. This section requires Arizona law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped, detained or arrested with the federal government if certain conditions are met.

In other words, the Supreme Court stripped Arizona of all power to carry out immigration enforcement. When an illegal alien is found, all Arizona can do is report to the federal government and hope something happens.

This is a good excuse for anyone interested in lawful immigration to vote for Mitt Romney because the Obama administration has given every indication it does not take illegal immigration seriously, and the Supreme Court has ruled states can do nothing to make up the difference.

Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major. His column appears online weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.

Published on June 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm