Wrong issue at hand

The ability of states to enact and enforce their own immigration laws represents one of the most current and controversial issues in national government, as evidenced by the fact that the Supreme Court heard arguments on Arizona’s S.B. 1070 this week. Litigation over the various state immigration laws exemplify federalism issues since the primary debate is whether states are preempted from enacting such laws due to federal law governing immigration. While I agree with the notion that the federal government is in charge of immigration, I think portions of these state laws should be upheld since they are enacting laws to enforce current federal immigration laws, rather than creating new immigration laws.

The portion of S.B. 1070 requiring Arizona state police officers to check the immigration status of those arrested and detained seems reasonable. Since Arizona faces one of the highest populations of illegal immigrants, it makes sense that the state legislature felt the need to create laws to combat that problem. It especially makes sense that Arizona has an interest in checking if those committing crimes, which would lead to them being arrested and detained, are illegally in the United States. Requiring police officers to check the status of arrestees and then notifying the federal authorities does not seem to overstep any boundary since the police officers are not then taking matters into their own hands and deciding to deport those immigrants. Arizona would still be respecting federal law and congressional authority over immigration by turning over those found to be unlawfully in the United States. One could even argue that they are assisting the federal government in enforcing federal law, which should be encouraged.

This portion of the law becomes more difficult when considering the fact that the police officers choosing to confirm the citizenship status of the arrestee is to do so when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. One of the reasons state immigration laws are criticized by many relate to the proposition that they encourage racial profiling. Many protest the Arizona law arguing this would lead to racial and ethnic profiling because Arizona police officers would use being of Hispanic race or ethnicity as “reasonable suspicion” since most illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico. They argue S.B. 1070 encourages racial profiling, a known problem in the United States justice system needing change. However, racial profiling has nothing to do with an argument based on federal preemption. Racial profiling has long led to many problems, but would not be a reason to prohibit states from enacting immigration laws because the Constitution promulgates power over immigration to Congress. The issue of racial profiling would need to be argued under other theories, which do not relate to the separation of federal and state powers. In fact, the Supreme Court did not allow any of those types of arguments when hearing the Arizona case.

The arrest and detain portion of S.B. 1070 seems constitutional under federal preemption theories. Nonetheless, the more controversial portions of S.B. 1070, such as making it a state crime to seek work if unlawfully in the country, along with the racial profiling issue may be stricken by the Supreme Court, but not due to federal preemption.

Blog Stage:6

Classmate's article

I respectfully disagree with this student's argument because the reasoning seemingly only comes from the fact that she, as well as most, want people to have health insurance. The Affordable Care Act is controversial in many ways, but the controversy does not focus on some people arguing people shouldn't have insurance (aside from the argument that not all people want to participate in the health insurance market, and therefore should not be forced to). I think this blog post is simplifying the debate and missing the critical issues. The Affordable Care Act is potentially problematic due to constitutional and financial issues. The biggest problem seems to be the individual mandate and tax penalty issues, which this blog post did not address. The individual mandate and tax penalty imposed if one does not purchase the required insurance stem from complicated constitutional law issues, which seem to be the critical issues that the Supreme Court focused on during the case arguments; therefore, I believe that the debate really hinges on those issues, and how the Supreme Court decides the case. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this part of the debate too well because of the legal complexity, which is why many people are outraged because they just want healthcare. However, the way in which the legislation was written and the "penalty" it would impose seem to be the real issue. I recognize that many people are not digging into these issues because of their complexity, and due to the complexity, they are not readily explained and found in the media. I wish there were more educational articles about the Act that explain how the mandate and penalty are constitutionally problematic because then people wouldn't see those opposing the Act as people who don't want others to have health insurance, because that is simply not the crutch of the issue.
The student does mention the financial part of the debate, and how the Act raises concerns because it would increase the national debt. However, this part of the argument is also much more complicated, and requires a great deal of financial analysis. Also, the student didn't raise the main argument typically used here (and argued before the Supreme Court), that people who do not currently have health insurance are causing more stress on the economy and national debt because of the high bills that must be paid for by the government when they do seek health care. However, that argument also ties into complex arguments about whether someone can claim they "do not participate" in the health care market, and therefore, would not cause such stress on the economy, which is countered with arguments that everyone at some time in their life would use the health care system, so remaining uninsured ultimately will cause economic harm. I think this argument is also complicated because it revolves around more constitutional issues involving the Commerce Clause, which once again is not easily explained or addressed in most media articles on this debate.
Ultimately, the Affordable Care Act represents a complicated piece of legislation that is not easily understood by most Americans. Consequently, it has turned more into a polarized issue where people seem to take a simplified Republican or Democratic side, without really understanding the legal issues and why the law may be stricken, in whole or part, by the Supreme Court.