The Supreme Court has long since mastered the art of giving a little to both sides, especially when it comes to extremely controversial issues. Their decision in the Arizona v. United States case is a classic example. While they struck down the bulk of the law, the most controversial provision – the requirement that local law enforcement check immigration status as part of a stop or arrest – remains intact, for now. This has given both sides the chance to cheer the opinion, and both sides have proceeded to claim victory.
The biggest victory, however, is for those of us who want a strong dichotomy between federal and state authority. Federalism was one of the key concepts developed by the founders and it remains a keystone of our system of republican government.
We in Virginia have long led the fight to try and contain the federal government within its proper boundaries. Every session, the General Assembly sees at least one piece of anti-federal government legislation, and some – like the attempt to bar the individual mandate in Virginia – have passed and been signed into law. Most of the pressure in the federalist system lately has been from states trying to reclaim some of their sovereignty from a federal government that has grown far beyond where it has any need to be. From the EPA to TSA, the federal government has been heavily criticized by the states for overstepping their bounds.
The Arizona v. United States decision, on the other hand, represents the reverse – where the states have attempted to overstep their bounds and legislate in areas that have been given exclusively to the federal government. That’s why the Arizona decision is a healthy one. If we want to hold the federal government back from interfering in what is clearly the sphere of influence of the states, we must be willing to do the same to the states when they try and usurp federal authority.
Whether we like it or not, the Constitution has long vested the responsibility for policing the borders and for establishing rules for naturalization with the National government. Only 15 of the 50 states share a border with a foreign country. Ensuring a uniform, fair and equitable immigration system is a federal responsibility, and as the Supreme Court noted yesterday, the federal government has not delegated that responsibility to the states – they’ve occupied the field, and thus any state regulations that tread in that area will be preempted.
That’s how it should be. Those of us who demand a smaller federal government that focuses solely on core principles must be willing to let the federal government legislate or fail to legislate in those core areas. Likewise, states that demand their sovereignty should go out of their way not to interject themselves into areas that are clearly within the federal government’s jurisdiction.
Yes, the federal government has failed when it comes to crafting an immigration policy that secures our borders and deals with illegals in a fair way. But that failure does not and should not open it up for a free-for-all at the state level to fix the federal government’s failures. There has to be a balance, and the Arizona decision struck a fair one. Those of us who want to see comprehensive immigration reform must realize that there are no shortcuts, no work arounds, and focus our efforts solely on convincing Congress and the White House that they need to make reform a priority. No one else can do it but them.
If we truly want federalism and the 10th amendment to mean something, we’ve got to be willing to say no to the states, just as we say no to the federal government. The Arizona decision was a good one and I believe it bodes well for the end of the individual mandate come Thursday. Time will tell.
