Current Affairs

On April 13, 2010, the state of Arizona enacted an immigration law where the intent was to permit state law enforcement to handle some situations with respect to immigration status. The law included the language as the federal law, however, the Constitution grants the Federal Government the authority to manage immigration. This state law has since caused a good measure of controversy.

There are problems on the subject of immigration, itself. There are legal issues that deal with the capacity of a State to oversee its own borders. There also is the concern over giving a state the legal ability to do something that the Constitution meant for the Federal Government to do.

The issues specific to Arizona have to do with the proximity to Mexico, and the large land border that they share. The southern border of Arizona is largely desert and sparsely populated. There are no sizable population centers on either side of the border for hundreds of miles. The fact that the southern border of Arizona is merely a political boundary, not following any natural land formations or rivers, makes the boundary hard to distinguish from the ground.

As a result, the region is frequently used for illegal entrance into the United States from Mexico. The extensive land area offers miles of wide open space to cross without regular supervision to safeguard the border. In the 1990's, nearly 80,000 individuals who had entered through the border illegally were determined to be residing in Arizona. By 2010, that number had increased to nearly 500,000.

The concern to the Arizona state government was the absence of action enacted by the federal law enforcement personnel. Whatever the explanations were for the scarcity of federal measures, Arizona needed to be able to assist the federal agencies in controlling immigration situations. To make this happen, they were required to have a law approved at the state level. The regulation was brought forth in the state senate as SB 1070, and became referred to as "Arizona SB 1070".

The objections to the law included a law suit by the Attorney General of the United States that ended up being heard by the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, portions of the law were upheld, and other parts were reckoned to be preempted by the federal law. By preserving parts of the state law, the state law officials in Arizona can ask for legitimate documents while responding to individuals possibly breaking the law.

Ultimately, the dilemma of state rights on enforcement of immigration matters was neither strengthened nor weakened by the Supreme Court decision. Arizona law enforcers can help with immigration situations to a certain degree, and this was the original purpose of the passing the law. Creating an environment where everyone in the state is in good standing with the law will require a longer period of time to obtain.