Obama upended over Arizona Immigration Bill

In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.

Hours later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation’s toughest immigration law, making illegal immigration a state crime and requiring police to question people about their immigration status if officers suspect they are in the U.S. illegally.
Journal Community

Ms. Brewer, a Republican, said the state action was forced by Washington’s failure to secure the U.S. borders and solve the nation’s thorny illegal immigration problem. “Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation,” she said.

The president said it was the state that was “misguided” and that the Arizona measure would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

Mr. Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to “examine the civil rights and other implications” of the new law. Justice officials said they were considering their options, and it wasn’t clear Friday what they might do. Regardless, the law seemed certain to be challenged in court by opponents.

Among the constitutional questions raised by the law, according to current and former government officials and legal experts, are provisions that may violate protections against unreasonable searches, for example, by asking police to stop people solely to prove their immigration status.

Arizona and other states allow police to check immigration status if a person is under investigation for another crime.

The president’s comments, delivered during a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for members of the armed forces, was a forceful sign that Mr. Obama planned to push the immigration issue before the November elections, responding to frustration among Hispanic voters and their advocates over inaction.

Mr. Obama cited the Arizona measure as reason to pass comprehensive federal legislation, long thought moribund for the year. In that sense, he agreed with Gov. Brewer. “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” the president said.

Mr. Obama’s comments provoked angry responses from some in Arizona. Randy Pullen, chairman of the state Republican Party, said the president had “done nothing to secure our southern border.”

He added, “President Obama chooses to be critical, yet doesn’t provide any constructive solutions to our nation’s border problems.”

Democratic leaders this week pledged to move a comprehensive immigration bill through Congress this year, which would include a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. As a political issue, immigration has potential benefits and risks for Democratic candidates. But the focus by party leaders makes clear they see the it as an overall winner.

Less clear is whether Congress will pass any legislation. Republicans may be hesitant to cooperate if immigration proposals are viewed as a pre-election tactic. Without Republican support, the measure cannot pass the Senate.

Mr. Obama noted Friday that 11 Republicans still in the Senate voted for an immigration overhaul four years ago—when then-President George W. Bush was pushing it. That measure included a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants.

In addition to addressing citizenship, Sens. Charles Schumer (D, N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R, S.C.) are working on legislation that also would include a guest worker program, border security measures and a new requirement that all workers have a biometric identification card to make sure employers don’t hire people who aren’t in the U.S. legally.

Democratic strategists said Friday that Mr. Obama’s new push reflects a renewed feeling after the health care bill’s passage that difficult legislation can be accomplished. But they said the White House also sees the Arizona law as a political opportunity.

They likened Ms. Brewer’s decision to that of California Gov. Pete Wilson in the 1990s, whose embrace of anti-illegal immigration measures preceded major losses by Republicans among Hispanic voters.

“There will be a blowback from this, and the White House realizes what is happening,” said Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi. He is conducting surveys on the issue for several immigrant advocacy groups.

Rep. Tom Price (R, Ga.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, criticized the possibility of Mr. Obama interfering with the Arizona law. “If he simply wants to opine, that’s one thing,” said Mr. Price. “But if he wants his Justice Department to tell states they can’t do what they decided to do in a legal process, then that’s a whole different question.”

The U.S. is now home to about 11 million illegal immigrants. The flow of illegal immigrants into the country is slowing, due to the poor economy and tougher enforcement.

Arizona’s illegal immigrant population fell to 460,000 in January 2009 from 560,000 in January 2008, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s latest figures.

Arizona has long been a flashpoint in the debate over illegal immigration. The state, which has been a key entryway for drug and human smugglers, has passed a spate of controversial laws to quash illegal immigration in recent years. Tensions reached a new high last month when a rancher was killed near the border.

As the deadline for Ms. Brewer to approve or veto the bill approached, hundreds of demonstrators gathered at the state Capitol to protest. The governor’s phone lines were flooded this week with calls. Demands for a veto surpassed calls for approval by a large margin, according to a state official who asked not to be named.

But Ms. Brewer faces pressure from an overwhelming Anglo and conservative electorate who will vote in the Republican primary this summer, where she faces a challenge.

The Arizona law appears to be “unconstitutional,” said Karl Manheim, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who has written about states’ past attempts to regulate immigration. “States have no power to pass immigration treaties because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”
________________________________________

I have to ask in case someone knows- Wouldn’t the fact that the FBI are now allowed to travel abroad attending to prosecution of criminal activity relative to the US set a precedent of domestic law enforcement in compliance with US foreign policy?

WSJ