Arizona law and the feds

Wednesday’s argument before the Supreme Court failed to produce even one good reason why Arizona’s law on illegal immigration is illegal or unconstitutional.

The main aspect of the law is that it requires police to check on the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons. And if someone turns out to be undocumented or “illegal,” the feds are notified.

Whether this is feasible depends on how it’s done. If Arizona handles things like Oregon, where you have to prove your residency status when getting or renewing a driver’s license, it should be no problem. Showing the license answers the question, and that’s all there is to it. No racial profiling is involved.

The court made clear that it wanted to consider the federal government’s challenge to the Arizona law only in relation to state versus federal power: Does the state interfere with the national government in some way?

States enforce other federal rules or laws. States enforce provisions of the Clean Water Act, for example, or the regulations of HIPAA. Also, the federal Justice Department wants states to enforce the federal prohibition against marijuana. In fact, it looks askance at states like California and Oregon that try to go their own way in regard to pot.

So what is so wrong with a state helping the government enforce its immigration laws?

Before the court Wednesday, the government maintained that the Arizona law could sour U.S. relations with Mexico. But enforcement of U.S. laws can’t be made contingent on approval by another country, can it?

The news reports on this case suggest that the outcome, expected in June, may have an influence on the national political campaigns. But Latinos, the group likely to be most affected by enforcement, have no reason to fear the outcome if the Arizona law is upheld.

If former immigrants have gone through the steps the law lays out, they have no reason to champion the cause of those who have not.