Brewer tries to salvage remnant of immigration law - Your West Valley News: Valley & State

Brewer tries to salvage remnant of immigration law

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, April 1, 2013 1:16 pm

SAN FRANCISCO • Gov. Jan Brewer is making a bid this week to save part of what’s left of the law she signed in 2010 aimed at illegal immigration.

Attorneys for the governor will argue Tuesday to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Arizona has a legal right to arrest and prosecute those who, while violating any other law, harbor or transport those who they know or should know are in this country illegally. They hope to get the court to reverse a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocking the state from enforcing the measure an invalid intrusion by the state into exclusively federal territory.

Arizona has been there before.

In fact, the issue of federal preemption was precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court already struck down three other provisions of SB 1070. And the state was barred from enforcing a fourth by the 9th Circuit.

But the governor is hoping for a different outcome on this fight. Her attorneys are ready to argue that Arizona does have the right to prosecute those for harboring illegal immigrants.

That could prove to be an uphill battle.

In issuing her injunction in 2010, Bolton pointed out it already is a federal crime to transport an illegal immigrant within the country, to conceal their presence, and to encourage someone to enter this country without authorization. That same law also makes it a crime to aid in any of these acts.

“While state officials are authorized to make arrests for these violations of federal law, the federal government retains exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute them,’’ Bolton ruled.

But John Bouma, the lead attorney hired by Brewer, said that does not decide the issue.

“Arizona is not seeking to prosecute persons for violating (that federal law),’’ he wrote. “It is seeking to prosecute persons for similar conduct under Arizona law.’’

But the legal team arguing against the validity of the law said Congress has spelled out in detail what actions can be taken against those who harbor or aid illegal immigrants. That, they said, precludes the state from imposing its own regulations.

Linton Joaquin, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, said there would be no legal challenge if the state were having its own police officers enforce existing federal law. But that is not what is happening here.

“What the state is doing is going beyond that and creating a state criminal provision that then would vest the state courts with the ability to interpret how that law is applied,’’ he said.

“Congress did not have that in mind,’’ Joaquin said. He said federal lawmakers want immigration questions to be decided by federal courts and officials.

Joaquin pointed out that this issue of federal preemption is precisely why the Supreme Court last year struck down three other provisions of SB 1070.

Attorney Kelly Kszywienski conceded the state lost the earlier arguments before the high court. But she said this law on harboring is different.

For example, the justices said Arizona cannot impose its own penalties on undocumented workers seeking employment in the state.

But Kszywienski said that was because Congress specifically made seeking work a civil matter, not a criminal one. That put Arizona’s law to criminally punish those would-be laborers in direct conflict with federal law.

Similarly, the Supreme Court rebuffed the state’s argument that state officers should be able to decide when someone is “removable’’ from the country and can be detained, with the justices saying that is totally within the discretion of federal officials.

What’s different, Kszywienski said, is that Arizona’s “harboring’’ law parallels — and does not conflict with — federal regulation. That she said, makes it permissible.

  • Discuss

Tell Us What You Think!


Tell Us What You Think!