The Op-Ed page of the New York Times from April 23, 2012 featured an editorial by Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University entitled -"Let Arizona's Law Stand". The title itself is a misnomer- the author in no uncertain terms believes it [and its ilk] to be terrible law. S.B. 1070 requires local law enforcement to determine immigration status and arrest illegals [although prior to demanding proof of residency, the "perpetrator" must have committed an act worthy of being stopped and questioned]. His central argument is that the law is so bad that the US Supreme Court should uphold it - so that the law can die a natural death and defang its supporters.
He makes some interesting points and arguments:
1. States that adopt similar laws will lose foreign investment. He recounts the example of the German Daimler-Benz executive who left his passport and home while out for a drive in Alabama and thus found himself in jail. I assume he must thought he was on the autobahn where 100 mph is considered slow. Opponents of Alabama's law traveled to Berlin to the Daimler-Benz shareholders' meeting to raise a ruckus. They were no doubt summarily ejected - only members of Industriegewerkschaft Metall are allowed to raise a ruckus at shareholder meetings of German industrial behemoths.
2. Farmers in Alabama are up in arms over rotting fruit. All the more rotten tomatoes to hurl at state legislators or Governor Bob Bentley.
3. An illegal-immigration bill died in a Mississippi State Senate committee earlier this month after opposition from local business groups.
He goes on to say that "the conventional wisdom among immigration advocates is that immigrant interests will be best served if the Supreme Court makes an example of Arizona's laws by striking it down. But in the long run, immigrant interests will be better helped if the Supreme Court upholds S.B. 1070. Laws like Arizona's are such bad policy that, left to their own devices, they will die a natural death and their supporters will suffer the political consequences".
If the author was being facetious, I'd accompany him in a good chuckle, preferably over a margarita at a bodega served by a 80 year old grandmother [illegal] with lots of legal kin and deep ties to her churchgoing community [Newt would frown on any attempts to arrest and deport her]. But I don't think he is.
Is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to teach the states a lesson by not passing judgement? Really? And what makes Mr. Spiro think that the Justices will think this is a bad law? I thought it was precisely these kinds of questions that the Court is meant to address. Isn't the Obamacare suit about the federal government encroaching on states' turf? Similarly shouldn't the Court weigh and deliberate the States enacting legislation on issues that are the purview of the Federal government? I suspect that the law professor would think that it is. And maybe he is being facetious. I suspect that he is.