Oral arguments give the impression that the justices support the Arizona immigration law, and that even includes Justice Sotomayor.
In fact, the Justices make the exact same points I made two years ago. And no, I don’t think they have been reading my blog, I just think that they are very obvious points.
From the Politico article:
several of the court’s conservatives picked up on Arizona’s argument that the state’s policy isn’t really at odds with the laws Congress has passed, but with the way the Obama administration is choosing to enforce them.
Scalia twice asked Verrilli to cite a case in which the court struck down a state law for interfering with executive priorities, rather than a congressional statute. He could not do so, but said Congress specifically ceded broad powers on immigration to executive officials.
And that’s similar to what I previously wrote:
The Arizona law directing police to enforce the federal immigration laws is a procedural law and does not represent a substantive change to existing federal laws, so I don’t see that there is any preemption of federal law going on.
The real reason why liberals hate the Arizona law is that they disagree with the federal law that makes it illegal for people from other countries to move here and work here without proper permission from the federal government. There’s no support in Congress to open up the borders to all who wish to move here, but liberals are sneaky and they have effectively been able to get something closer to free open borders by not enforcing the immigration laws.
It doesn’t necessarily violate the Constitution if the executive branch assigns a very low priority to enforcing a law, but neither does it violate the Constitution if a state decides to assign a higher priority to enforcing the same law, assuming that nothing in the statutes passed by Congress explicitly prohibits states from doing that.