I would love to be the fly on the wall when the US District Court hears US v. State of Arizona on July 22nd. The suit claims that while the federal government has the ultimate authority to regulate matters of immigration and that the states "may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens" the states are "not allowed to establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws."
US v. Arizona also calls into question the provision in SB 1070 that allows for legal residents of Arizona to sue any official or agency that adopts a policy that "limits or restricts enforcement of federal immigration laws."
The United States is arguing that this law directly "imposes significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."
The United States is also concerned that the law will inadvertently catch authorized persons, immigrants and citizens "who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute." and it is concerned that SB 1070 will completely ignore humanitarian concerns and disrupt the relationship between the US and Mexico."
Though I'm no legal scholar (and won't claim to be one), I read through SB1070 a few times and honestly I could find nothing to support the above claims. Rather, the bill supports already existing federal law. Now if the federal government had NO immigration policy then I could see where SB1070 could be a violation of the federal government being the supreme authority on such matters. But immigration policy exists and I can't imagine that it could possibly be wrong for a state or local government to pass a law which supports already existing federal law.
As a matter of fact, every day state and local law enforcement agencies support federal laws, do they not? An example would be existing federal drug laws. If the state and local governments were having a major problem in enforcing anti-drug laws because the federal government just sat by and did nothing (for example trafficking drugs across the border from Mexico and Canada), and the state government decided to create a law which directly supported in every way, going after drug trafficking across state borders--would the federal government intervene and say the state had no authority? In the case of drug enforcement, the federal government would have a difficult time fighting this considering the fact that it spends billions every year on drug enforcement activities including education and awareness.
So why SB 1070? Why would the federal government want the state to stand-down from upholding federal law?
Well for one, it makes those in the federal government responsible for enforcing federal law look like incompetent fools.
Second, the State of Arizona is pissing off the Mexican government (and we're not supposed to because we need them for.......?) The Mexican people as a whole are really a nice, hardworking, honest and family-oriented people, it's the government that sucks. And why do we even give a rat's ass what the Mexican government thinks of our policy? They do nothing for us, there is no benefit to us kissing their ass. Unless of course we're concerned that the corrupt Mexican government will cease its war on border gang-drug wars and illegal border crossings....and well we can see clearly that the Mexican government's alleged "enforcement" is not having much of an effect as it is.
Or third, Arizona's law is going to actually force federal agencies to work harder and smarter. I don't mean the men and women in the trenches either. I am talking about the bureaucrats who run things. The lawsuit alleges that Arizona's law is going to significantly hinder federal agencies ability to do their jobs in regards to immigration enforcement and nabbing dangerous "top priority" individuals. We've got federal agencies wanting to monitor every action of every American not to mention x-ray/strip searches of little blue haired old ladies and babies in strollers at airports but we can't control the people who cross our borders daily.
I'd say the main reason for the lawsuit is simple. The State of Arizona just made the federal government look really incompetent (not that we don't already know that). I mean a state passing its own laws UPHOLDING existing federal laws is an act of clear defiance. It says "look pal, you're not doing your job, in fact you downright suck at it, so we're going to it ourselves."
That's exactly what the State of Arizona has done here. Instead of little brother waiting for big brother to finally get the balls to take care of his responsibilities--mainly protecting little bro from being bullied and pushed around, little brother, who got tired of waiting around while he got the shit beat out of him finally said "you know what big bro, you're a weenie, I don't need you" and so he decided to take on the bully himself.