FAIR Welcomes Supreme Court Review of Arizona’s SB 1070

By Frosty Wooldridge

Dan Stein, director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, www.fairus.org , responded to the latest Supreme Court announcement  as it will take on a federal suit against Arizona’s SB 1070.

“The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) welcomes the decision by the United States Supreme Court to review Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070,” said Stein. “The Arizona legislature passed SB 1070 in April of 2010 to stop local jurisdictions from granting sanctuary to illegal aliens and to strengthen the federal-state-local partnership critical for effective immigration enforcement. The major provisions of this landmark legislation have been on hold under an injunction issued by the federal district court, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld.

“By reviewing the case, Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court is notably rejecting the request by the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) that it let the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision stand. In a brief filed with the Court in November, the DOJ argued that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly decided the case, that there was no conflict between the various Courts of Appeal, and that to review SB 1070 at this point would be “premature.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision to review SB 1070 is an encouraging sign. We believe that SB 1070 is a legitimate effort by a state to partner with the federal government in assisting in the enforcement of our immigration laws. In light of the administration’s complete abdication of its role in enforcing our immigration laws, citizens need some defined scope for permitted state action to ensure there is a robust relationship between federal policies and the nation’s need for effective immigration enforcement.”

“With a ruling likely in the months before the November election, state immigration laws will remain an important part of the national dialogue about immigration. FAIR welcomes a robust dialogue during this period, as there is a need for better public understanding of why state laws are a vital part of true and meaningful immigration reform.”

Obama’s Solution to Border Security?
Unmanned Crossings and Withdrawal of National Guard Troops

“In the midst of a Republican primary where border security is issue No. 1 on candidates’ immigration agendas, the Obama administration is doing everything it can to dismantle the minimal protection already in place,” said Stein. “Instead of acknowledging security shortcomings on the U.S.’s southern border, President Obama is now working with Mexico to install an unmanned border crossings and possibly withdraw National Guard troops.

“In cooperation with the Mexican government, the U.S. wants to open an unmanned border crossing in Big Bend National Park in West Texas. The demand for the post comes from residents of a small Mexican town across the Rio Grande River, who complain of a lack of access to the U.S. Though the town currently has to be protected from drug cartels by Mexican federal police, the U.S. is capitulating to the residents’ claims that the crossing will help boost their town’s economy. Now, border crossers can enter the U.S. by scanning documents and speaking with Border Patrol remotely at border “kiosks.”

“Additionally, following media reports portraying National Guard troops as an ineffective addition to border security, the White House is moving to decrease their presence. The administration cited budget issues and their perceived minimal impact as reasons not to renew the deployment of the 1,200 troops currently stationed on the southern border. However, the administration failed to acknowledge that the National Guard’s ability to contribute to enforcement has been significantly hindered by a narrow mandate, which effectively blocks them from making arrests or acting as more than lookouts and messengers for Border Patrol agents.

“While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continually cites low apprehension stats as evidence that their border security plan is working, this claim should be viewed with some skepticism. There is no way to confirm that fewer apprehensions actually reflect a successful deterrent effect on the border or that fewer aliens are crossing into the U.S. illegally. Regardless, the U.S. should at the very least be establishing a consistent, strong presence on the border – both in manpower, and technological and physical barriers – rather than dismantling the minimal protections already in place.”

Alabama AG Pushes Repeal of Parts of Immigration Law

“Last week, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange sent a memorandum to the state’s legislative leaders, recommending that they repeal parts of Alabama’s immigration enforcement law, HB 56,” said Stein. “Specifically, Strange recommended repealing the provisions that require aliens to carry their registration documents with them (a provision that mirrors federal law) and the provision that requires schools to collect non-identifiable data on the immigration status of students. These changes, Strange argued, could make the statute easier to defend in court.

“The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Alabama in August to stop HB 56 from taking effect. However, the District Court allowed most of the law to stand, including the provisions on alien registration cards and school data collection. The DOJ appealed the District Court’s ruling and, in October, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined both provisions.

“It is unclear whether Alabama’s attorney general has been swayed by open borders organizations or protest by illegal aliens. In his memo to the House Speaker and Senate Leader, Strange did not explain how repealing these provisions would improve the law. And with regard to defending HB 56, it appears that repealing the provisions only makes the law easier to defend by eliminating some of its key enforcement components.”

You may contact Dan Stein and join FAIR at www.fairus.org.

Frosty Wooldridge is a member of the board at FAIR.