The government said Tuesday that its immigration enforcement policy
"targets ”¦ dangerous aliens," including violent criminals, gang members,
drug traffickers and others "who pose a danger to the national security
and a risk to public safety," whereas the Arizona law would force
federal officials to cope with a flood of illegal immigrants who pose no
danger.
Entirely innocent Arizonans will suffer as well, the administration
said. It foresaw "countless inspections and detentions" of people who do
not have the correct papers. But U.S. officials did not contend that
the state law violates federal civil rights laws or the equal-protection
guarantee in the Constitution.
The lawsuit urges a federal judge in
Phoenix to block Arizona's arrest law from taking effect as scheduled
July 29. It adds new weight on the side of the pending suits by
immigrants-rights advocates, who say Arizona's stepped-up enforcement
would lead to racial profiling and harassment of Latinos.
The move raises the political stakes for the White House. President
Obama made no public statement upon the filing of the lawsuit, but Atty.
Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano — a former Arizona governor — said the state was out of line.
"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration law is a national
responsibility," Holder said. "A patchwork of state laws will only
create more problems than its solves."
Republican leaders, reacting quickly, said Washington and the
administration deserved the blame for failing to enforce the immigration
laws over many years. "Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do
a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not
help secure our borders," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.).
In April, the Arizona Legislature voted to "discourage and deter"
illegal immigrants from staying in the state by requiring the police to
question immigrants under some circumstances.
When an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a person is not a legal
resident, he is to ask questions and may take into custody those who
cannot show they are legal residents. These illegal residents could be
convicted of a state crime and then turned over to federal immigration
agents.
But the administration officials said Arizona's policy "disrupts the
national enforcement regime." Its legal brief explains what U.S.
immigration officials have long acknowledged: They do not wish to arrest
or deport the vast majority of the estimated 12 million illegal
immigrants.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency said it was on track
to deport about 400,000 people this year. But the agency said last week
that it did not seek to deport illegal immigrants who were brought here
as children or who are caring for children or close relatives.
The administration's lawsuit rests on the Constitution and its
declaration that the laws of the United States are the "supreme law of
the land." State laws that conflict with federal law are deemed to be
"preempted."
The Justice Department argued that Arizona's law should be struck down
because immigration "remains the exclusive province of the federal
government." If the law were to be put into effect, the government said,
it would disrupt federal efforts and upset the "careful balance of
immigration enforcement priorities."
The lawsuit was cheered by a Latino community that has grown
increasingly disillusioned with the Obama administration over the
failure to revamp the immigration system. A Gallup poll showed that
Obama's approval rating among Latinos dropped from 69% in January to 57%
in May. Although Latino voters are unlikely to swing to the Republican
Party in great numbers, they could damage the prospects of Democratic
candidates in the midterm election in November by staying home. Over the
past week, the Obama administration has taken steps to reenergize
grass-roots Latino voters.
But nationwide polls have also found that 50% to 60% of Americans
support Arizona's effort to arrest more illegal immigrants, and
politicians elsewhere have proposed similar provisions in their states.
As of June 30, similar bills had been introduced in five other states,
according to the National Council of State Legislatures: South Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Michigan.
In Florida, Rick Scott, a Naples multimillionaire who has made illegal
immigration a centerpiece of his campaign to be the Republican candidate
for governor, recently issued a television ad blasting his primary
opponent, Atty. Gen. Bill McCollum, over the Arizona law. McCollum says
that he supports it but that it's not needed in Florida.
"Rick Scott backs Arizona's law. He'll bring it to Florida and let our
police check if the people they arrest are here legally," the ad says.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer derided Obama's intervention as "nothing more
than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used
against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona."
She also pledged to defend the measure, SB 1070, in court. "The truth is
the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors
substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many
decades. Arizona's law is designed to complement, not supplant,
enforcement of federal immigration laws."
The new lawsuit also puts vulnerable Democrats in a difficult spot,
given the popularity of Arizona's tough new law. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick
(D-Ariz.), who is in a tough reelection fight, issued a statement
Tuesday calling the lawsuit "a sideshow distracting us from the real
task at hand."
The legal battle may be decided on a fast track. U.S. District Judge
Susan Bolton has set a hearing for July 22 in Phoenix to hear arguments
on whether to block the law from going into effect. If she issues a
temporary injunction, the state can immediately appeal to the U.S. 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and from there, to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
This article was printed in the Los Angeles Times on July 6th, 2010. Ken Dilanian and Peter Nicholas in the Washington bureau and Times staff
writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.