What is the immigration law in Arizona?

Answer 1

It gives law enforcement the ability to enforce laws, that are already laws. If you are an illegal alien and you are lawfully detained, they may ask your Immigration status. If you cannot prove you are here legally, you may be deported.

Answer 2

There is much debate on this issue. Many legal scholars do not yet agree on the answer to this question, and it is likely that it will be decided in court at some point in the future.

Despite having massive support by the Arizona public, the law does appear (on its face) to violate Federal law on at least one issue.

The key element of the Arizona law is that it allows Arizona state police to enforce Federal immigration law. This likely violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes Federal law over State law, and that no State may pass a law that supersedes or interferes with Federal law.

The Supreme Court has clarified this clause in the 1985 case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation. In it's ruling, the Court found that the criteria by which to judge the constitutionality of a conflicting law is as follows:

1. Compliance with both the Federal and the State laws is impossible, or

2. "...State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

The enforcement of immigration policy has always been the purview of the Federal government. The reason for this is to prevent one state from having a different immigration policy from another. This clause is the legal basis for the concept that the border is a national border and not a state one. This is, perhaps, the largest reason that the law may be deemed unconstitutional.

However, the law was specifically written to try and avoid any constitutional issues, and there is some relevant case law that helps cloud the legal waters.

First, the Supreme Court in the case of De Canas v. Bica (1976) decided that mere mention of immigration policy in State law does not automatically render it unconstitutional. It is widely understood that this means that States may enact laws that, for example, discourage illegal immigration so long as they do not explicitly contradict Federal law.

The question of whether or not the Arizona law applies to this case is uncertain. There are several questions regarding this law:

-Does the Arizona law "[stand] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" by allowing police to effectively become Federal border patrol agents?

-If a State did allow its law enforcement agents to effectively become Federal border patrol agents, what would they do with violators?

-Wouldn't such a law naturally require the State to determine a detention and deportation policy to deal with them?

-If it did, how would the State be able to ensure that their policy would mirror Federal policy?

-Wouldn't the State be in constant danger of superseding Federal authority whenever Congress alters its immigration policies? Doesn't such a scenario come dangerously close to interfering with the Federal government's authority to oversee the nation's immigration policies?

Furthermore, many people feel that the Federal government has had lax enforcement (to say the least) of Federal immigration law. This also raises several questions:

-Do the States have the right to enforce Federal law when the Federal government is not enforcing it sufficiently?

-If so, what criteria must be established for a State to begin to enforce Federal law? Specifically, what standard must be applied for a State to take up Federal enforcement on its own?

-Would the (hypothetical) right of a State to enforce Federal law erode or eventually erode the Constitution's Supremacy Clause?

The second issue with Arizona's law is whether or not it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The Arizona law establishes a new "reasonable suspicion" standard by which citizens may be stopped for violating immigration policy. The law requires that all non-citizens (foreign visitors or day-workers, or those whose citizenship is still pending) be required to carry their immigration and identification papers at all times, and that states that citizens who are otherwise legally contacted (for, say, a speeding ticket) may be detained until proof of their citizenship is established.

The first issue with this is "what defines 'reasonable suspicion'?" The law details several criteria that must be met before an individual may be detained, but critics have charged that they are easily-abused by police. First, the requirement that police may only question a person's citizenship after a legal stop is legally ambiguous. There are numerous innocent situations in which a police officer can establish "legal contact" with a person (jaywalking or a broken tail light or a noise complaint, for example).

Critics also argue that this would lead to racial profiling, as it is likely that someone of Hispanic ethnicity is much more likely to be questioned as someone of white ethnicity is, especially if that person has a foreign-sounding accent. Critics believe that in a country defined by individual rights and checks against police power, the Arizona law overreaches.

Because of the importance of these questions, it is likely that they, and others, will be heard and decided in court at some point in the future.

UPDATE (7/29/10): During the lawsuit by the US Government against Arizona (US v Arizona), the US requested an injunction against the Arizona law while the lawsuit is pending. Yesterday, the judge granted this injunction for the most controversial parts of the law. This means that Arizona will be barred from enacting these parts of the law until the lawsuit has been decided. The law was originally scheduled to go into effect today.

This is notable because in order for an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff has to demonstrate there would be clear damage or harm done against them during the time the case is being argued. It is generally considered unusual for injunctions to be granted, which suggests that the judge believes the United States' case against Arizona is strong.

Answer 3

Immigration laws are controlled by the Secretary of State for the United States, and administrated by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (a Federal Agency). Arizona cannot have an immigration law, as immigration is left to the power of the Federal Government: US Constitution Article 1 section 8 clause 4. If Arizona is (was) attempting to violate these uniform rules, they would be in violation of the US Constitution; it should also be noted that the McCarran-Walter Act (Immigration and Naturalization act of 1952) would be violated.