U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law

Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.

"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."

That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Another provision allows suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without warrants

"The justices sent a clear signal that there's a huge zone for state action in this area," Stein said. "There will be an enormous amount of energy spent in next few months examining the full range of possibilities."

For starters, a ruling in favor of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 would likely enable Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah to put move forward with comparable measures that were enacted but have been on hold pending the high court's decision.

"If Arizona does very well, we'll do very well," said Alabama Sen. Scott Beason, sponsor of a law that in some respects is tougher than Arizona's. In addition to requiring police to determine citizenship status during traffic stops, it directs government offices to verify legal residency for transactions like obtaining a car license, enrolling a child in school and getting a job.

Lawmakers in such diverse states as Mississippi and Pennsylvania said they would be eager to follow the Arizona/Alabama model if the Supreme Court gives a green light.

"You look at poll after poll after poll, whether they're a business owner or employee or small business owner or executive, the majority of Americans support bills like 1070," said Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican who chairs the House State Government Committee.

Metcalfe has already introduced a bill that incorporates Arizona's law and is waiting for a favorableSupreme Court ruling to bring it up in his committee.

In Mississippi, a get-tough immigration bill passed the House earlier this year but died in a Senate committee. Its backers plan to try again next year, and hope for a Supreme Court ruling that gives them guidance.

"This just ensures to the taxpayers of Mississippi that when we pass the law, we won't end up in a long court battle," said Republican Rep. Becky Currie.

As in Mississippi, South Dakota lawmakers also have rejected a measure based on the Arizona law, but its sponsor, Republican Rep. Manny Steele of Sioux Falls, says he's ready to try again.

"I would be excited to get another bill going back in there, according to what the Supreme Courtdecision is," Steele said.

In Rhode Island, Rep. Peter Palumbo said he was pleased by the Supreme Court's apparent support for allowing states to enforce immigration law.

"It's tremendous," said Palumbo, a Democrat who would like to empower the state police to help federal authorities with immigration enforcement.

In several states where neither major party has a monopoly on power — Iowa, Colorado, Montana and Kentucky, among them — lawmakers said the fate of any hardline immigration bill likely will depend on the outcome of state elections in November.

One of Kentucky's leading critics of illegal immigration, Republican Rep. Stan Lee, said an Arizona-style bill has little chance of overcoming staunch opposition from the Democratic majority in the House.

"Even if the Supreme Court upholds all or virtually all of that, I don't expect to pursue any of that type of legislation unless there's a significant change in the makeup of the House," Lee said. "The votes, as I've discovered, just aren't there."

In Minnesota, Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski said he'll consider proposing a bill modeled in part on the Arizona law but acknowledged that it could well be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, whose term runs until 2014.

In Kansas, where Republicans dominate, GOP legislators are split over immigration, preventing action both on proposals to crack down on illegal immigration and a business-backed program to place some immigrants in hard-to-fill jobs in farming and other sectors.

Among the leaders of the get-tough faction in Kansas is Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped write the Arizona and Alabama laws. Kobach said the Supreme Court arguments bolstered his view that the most controversial part of the Arizona law — the "show your papers" provision — would withstand a legal challenge.

If the Supreme Court upholds key parts of the law, "it will be a huge green light," he said. "All of the other states will have a blueprint that they can copy."

In Virginia, which already has numerous restrictive immigration laws, Republican Delegate David Albo said there may not be room for many more.

"We're already bumping up against the legal limits of what we're allowed to do," said Albo, author of a law that denies adult illegal immigrants non-emergency public benefits such as food stamps and welfare benefits.

In many states, there is little or no prospect for adopting Arizona-style laws anytime soon. In some cases, such as in Idaho, it's because the agriculture industry worries about losing needed workers; elsewhere it's a question of immigrant-friendly politics.

"I can't envision the state adopting the position that we should be enforcing immigrant laws," said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, noting that his state has ample law enforcement challenges on its plate already.

In Illinois, which has some of the most immigrant-friendly laws in the nation, Republican Rep. Randy Ramey has tried four times to propose an Arizona-style law but failed to get a measure out of committee. Heartened by the Supreme Court arguments, Ramey said he may try again despite the odds.

"It encourages me, but doesn't mean anything will move here as long as Democrats are in charge," he said. "They'll just laugh at it."

Stands on the issue don't always follow predictable party lines. Republican Govs. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada — both Hispanics — say Arizona-style laws aren't needed in their states. Hispanics account for 46 percent of the population in New Mexico, the highest proportion of any state.

"Gov. Martinez fully believes that any policies addressing illegal immigration have to begin at the federal level," said her spokesman, Greg Blair.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Of that total, roughly 6.1 million are from Mexico, down from nearly 7 million in 2007, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. That decline has coincided with a cooling-off of the immigration debate in some states, such as Tennessee.

"It doesn't seem to have the same numbers that were here a couple of years ago," said state Sen. Bill Ketron, a Republican who has sponsored a number of bills targeting illegal immigrants.

Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization, predicted that most states — regardless of the Supreme Court's decision — would stay away from Arizona-type laws out of self-interest.

"For most of them, the balance sheets do not add up," she said, referring to the Alabama law that has created burdens for some business and caused farmers to complain about lack of workers to pick their crops.

Vermont, where a growing number of Hispanic migrants work in the dairy industry, is among a handful of states overtly welcoming immigrants regardless of their legal status. Last fall, Gov. Peter Shumlin urged police to "look the other way" when the only legal problem might be an immigration violation.

"Vermont is the antithesis of Arizona," said Rep. Suzi Wizowaty of Burlington, who has backed a bill to require police to follow such policies. "Our goal in Vermont is to be the kind of place that welcomes all kinds of people."

The welcome mat is out in Alaska, also.

"We want more immigrants," said Republican Rep. Paul Seaton. "There just aren't people from here to do the work."

___

Arizona’s illegal-immigration law heads to Supreme Court

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the country's toughest illegal-immigration bill into law two years ago, setting off a long legal battle with the Obama administration and inspiring half a dozen states to emulate Arizona and pass similar laws. On Wednesday, the federal government and Arizona will face off at the Supreme Court, where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince the court that the law is an unconstitutional invasion into the federal government's turf.

A federal judge blocked four major aspects of the law before they ever went into effect, including the provision that local police officers check the immigration status of people during stops if they have reason to suspect they lack legal status. Provisions making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, or for any immigrant to fail to carry immigration papers, were also blocked. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision and shot down most of the law.

Although public opinion polls showed that most Americans supported the law's provisions after it passed, the minority opposition was passionate, and it set off a national debate about illegal immigration that has permeated the presidential elections. Opponents argued that the law would encourage racial profiling and branded Arizona the "show me your papers" state. More than 100 different parties, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and dozens of states, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs weighing in on the law.

Three interesting twists are likely to make this case even more high-profile—and political—than it already has been. First of all, Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates for the presidency have blasted the Obama administration for suing Arizona in the first place, using it as a way to paint the president as soft on illegal immigration and intrusive on states' rights. Secondly, a familiar face will represent Arizona's case: Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued against Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court earlier this month, will once again take center stage. Lastly, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the government first filed suit against Arizona. That means the court could theoretically split 4-4 in its decision. If this happens, the 9th Circuit decision stands and the law will remain blocked. But that outcome would give little guidance to states not in the 9th Circuit that have passed or want to pass laws similar to Arizona's, and would leave unsettled the question of how far states can go in combating illegal immigration.

Here's a brief rundown of each side's line of reasoning:

Arizona's argument

Arizona must prove that its law represents an honest attempt to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing existing immigration laws—and that it isn't trying to create its own immigration policy.

Clement argues in his brief that national immigration law provides for state-federal cooperation, even requiring states to send and receive information about the immigration status of suspects in some cases. The federal government runs a 24-hour database where state and local law enforcement officers can look up the immigration status of accused criminals. This suggests that states can and even should help enforce civil immigration law, he argues, particularly in the scenario where an officer has lawfully stopped someone he suspects of a crime. Interestingly, Clement quotes Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from K-12 public schools, to support his assertion that states can pass laws sanctioning illegal immigrants.

Clement also briefly dismisses the argument that Arizona's law is interfering with the United States' foreign relations, saying it cannot be an interference if it helps the federal government combat illegal immigration.

The federal government's case

The government hit Arizona particularly hard on two of the law's provisions: criminalizing those not carrying immigration papers, and criminalizing illegal immigrants who are looking for work. National immigration laws make working while unauthorized only a civil offense, and applying for work is not even a civil crime. (Lying on a federal work form about citizenship or providing false documents is a criminal offense.) This, the lawyers argue, is an example of Arizona making its own immigration policy, not just trying to help the federal government enforce its existing laws.

The government's other main argument just might be its strongest: that Arizona's law infringes on the federal government's ability to control foreign relations. (The Constitution makes clear that the states have no legal role in foreign policy and affairs.) Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender tells Yahoo News that this is the government's best shot. "To have 50 states able to decide on their own who they're going to detain and put in jail without the federal government's permission is an invitation to disaster," he says. In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit mentioned that five out of six Mexican border governors declined an invitation to travel to a conference in Arizona in protest of the law, and that the leaders of dozens of foreign countries and United Nations human rights officials had publicly criticized it. One 9th Circuit judge rejected this argument in his dissent, calling it a "heckler's veto."

The federal government's toughest job will most likely be to convince the justices that the Constitution prevents the policy of requiring police officers to ask people about their immigration status during stops. That's because Clement brings up fairly convincing examples of pre-existing cooperation between the federal and local governments in this case, through the 24-hour database and other programs.