Personal tools

Argument: Arizona should not make immigration law; fed should

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"Stopping Arizona." New York Times Editorial. April 29th, 2010: "TAKE BACK IMMIGRATION POLICY The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot make their own immigration laws. The Arizona debacle gives the Obama administration another chance to make it clear that the nation’s immigration policy cannot be left to a ragged patchwork of state and local laws."

Shikha Dalmia. "Arizona's Law: Anti-Immigrant And Anti-Constitutional." Forbes. May 5th, 2010: "the more serious constitutional problem with the Arizona law is that it illegitimately usurps a federal function given that, as with foreign policy matters, Uncle Sam has ultimate jurisdiction in setting national immigration policy. Professor Juliet Stempf of Portland's Lewis & Clark Law School notes that courts have given states some leeway to set their own laws to deal with immigrant-related crime and other issues so long as their primary purpose is not to regulate immigration flows. But the Arizona law is not exactly subtle about what its true aim is. Its opening sentence reads: “The intent of this act is to make attrition [of the immigrant population] through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” In short, it is criminalizing immigration-related violations under state law not to deal with immigrant-related crimes--but to give state authorities expanded tools to drive out immigrants. Hence, even if the Arizona law is identical in content with federal law, notes Prof. Sempf, it might still be overturned by courts on jurisdictional grounds."

Raul A. Reyes. "Arizona's un-American immigration law." Los Angeles Times. April 28th, 2010: "Goldberg reasons that, in certain situations of federal inaction, states have no choice but to lead by example and take on important issues. Here he cites California's efforts to combat global warming. While the Constitution makes no mention of climate control, it definitely offers specific guidelines for immigration. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to create a "a uniform rule of naturalization." Arizona's attempt to set its own immigration policy is a usurpation of federal power. There's nothing "humble" (Goldberg's word) about that."

University of Arizona, Office of the President. "SB 1070 - Arizona's New Immigration Law." Huffington Post. April 20th, 2010: "States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona's policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem."

"Editorial: Arizona immigration law a throwback to a sadder era." Sacramento Bee. April 28th, 2010: "The United States does not need a state-by-state patchwork of immigration laws. We need national immigration reform that realistically addresses the need for future flows of immigrants – rather than simply relegating people to the shadows of illegal immigration. If we can fix that, this country can get serious about securing the border from true threats – such as drug gangs and illegal firearms trafficking."

"Arizona goes over the edge." New York Times Editorial. April 17th, 2010: "The Arizona bill is another reminder why the administration needs to push for real immigration reform. The failure to address it nationally has left the field wide open for this outrage, and we fear more to come."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits