The United States filed suit against Arizona for their new immigration law, S.B. 1070. The U.S. Constitution gives sole authority to the federal government to regulate and enforce immigration. Now let us see if some right wing activist judges will re-interpret the Constitution for political reasons.
Most democrats, including President Barack Obama, want comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans do not want immigration reform. Matter of fact, 11 senators that supported immigration reform in 2006 under then President Bush, are now against it.
Republicans claim they want the president to secure the border. However, what does that really mean? Put up more fences? Are the republicans willing to raise taxes and expand government to pay for the fence and build it? Add more troops to the border? Great, let us bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan to secure our borders. Are the republicans willing to join President Obama and bring the troops home by July 2011 to help secure our borders?
Also, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
Now, a little case law history. The earliest U.S. Supreme Court case I could find on the federal government as the sole authority to regulate and enforce immigration is from May 15, 1893, Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. 13 S.Ct. 1016. Another Supreme Court case held, "Our cases have long recognized the preeminent role of the Federal Government with respect to the regulation of aliens within our borders." Toll v. Moreno, 102 S.Ct. 2977 (1982).
Also, see, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 96 S.Ct. 1883, 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 377-380, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1854-1856, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 418-420, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 1142-1143, 92 L.Ed. 1478 (1948); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 62-68 (1941); Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42, 36 S.Ct. 7, 11, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915).
Federal authority to regulate the status of aliens derives from various sources, including the Federal Government's power "[t]o establish [a] uniform Rule of Naturalization," U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, its power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", id., cl. 3, and its broad authority over foreign affairs,
see United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, 57 S.Ct. 216, 220, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936); Mathews v. Diaz, supra, at 81, n. 17, 96 S.Ct., at 1892, n. 17; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-589, 72 S.Ct. 512, 518-519, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952).
My solution is to have immigration reform and secure the border. It is ridiculous to think we can secure every inch of the border but if that is what needs to be done to compromise with the republicans then do it. Now will the republicans compromise with the democrats and support harsh punishment for businesses that hire illegal immigrants and allow some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants (like Ronald Reagan did and George W. wanted to do)?
In conclusion, I did not predict the government would win this case. I do predict the Courts will engage in judicial activism by overturning over 110 years of precedent case law and re-interpreting the U.S. Constitution to strip power away from the federal government to regulate and enforce immigration.