Debate Club

Is Arizona's SB 1070 Immigration Law Constitutional? >

The Supreme Court Shouldn't Be Making Immigration Policy

The Arizona law is a disaster but Congress, not the courts should be making immigration policy

April 23, 2012

About Tamar Jacoby:

Tamar Jacoby, a fellow at the New America Foundation, is president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small business owners working for better immigration law.

No, it's not constitutional, but Congress­—not the courts—should be making immigration policy

This is the second time in two years that the Supreme Court has deliberated about how much leeway states should have to enact their own immigration laws. Last year, in a ruling about state-imposed employer sanctions, the court gave Arizona a green light. In that case, the justices didn't need to consult the Constitution, because they found that the Arizona act lined up with federal law—it uses the same definitions, accepts the feds' determination of who is unauthorized, and otherwise "tracks" federal immigration law "in all material respects."

[See a collection of political cartoons on immigration.]

Does SB 1070 track federal law? That's likely to be a key concern for the justices again this year. And while it's dangerous to predict, I expect the court will find that at least parts of the measure pass muster.

But that in itself shouldn't make the law a model for other states.

Constitutional or not, SB 1070 and other statutes like it have been practical disasters. The problem arises when states go beyond implementing the law and use the enforcement tools at their disposal to try to drive immigrants away. Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia show what can happen. All three have enacted law based on the concept of "attrition through enforcement"—deliberately making life so difficult for immigrants that they voluntarily pick up and leave the state. The result: tens of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, have fled—with devastating consequences for the economy in all three states.

[Read: Immigration Reform Is Key to Job Creation.]

All of which raises a bigger question: Should the courts be making immigration policy? They have a role to play, protecting the Constitution and preventing abuses. But surely it's a limited role. Not only is it impossible for judges to take account of all the practical considerations that should go into immigration policy—from economic issues to consequences for American culture to how open and welcoming a country we want to be.

But even if these issues could be handled well in court, that won't resolve the political debate. Policies made by judges invariably leave one side feeling cheated and angry, allowing what should be decidable political issues to widen into cultural divides. Look at busing and abortion. Is that really where we want to go with immigration?

The Supreme Court will have its say on SB 1070, but that shouldn't be the end of the debate. Congress needs to come back to the issue and mediate it—the sooner, the better.

Tags:
Arizona,
Supreme Court,
immigration reform
Other Arguments
#1

Yes — The lawsuit against Arizona's SB 1070 is just another part of the amnesty effort

JON FEERE, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies

#2

Yes — Arizona's law does not conflict with federal law, thus the Supreme Court should uphold it

ROBERT ALT, Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation

#3

Yes — U.S. presidents should never side with foreign governments over their own people

RUSSELL PEARCE, Former Arizona State Senator and Author of SB 1070

#4

No — Given the sad state of American constitutional law, the court will probably judge Arizona's law constitutional

ALEX NOWRASTEH, Immigration Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity

#5
#6
#7
About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Advertisement