United States v. Arizona

On Tuesday, the Obama administration made a fool of itself.

It was, without a doubt, a calculated and premeditated action. The administration claimed that it had to do something — otherwise terrorists and gangs would gain the upper hand. National security is always an easy excuse to hide behind, but, with midterm elections right around the corner, I don’t think many people are fooled by the political rhetoric.

I am, of course, talking about the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona about its controversial new immigration law. It should come as no surprise — the administration declared its intention to sue in mid-June.

It’s not even the first lawsuit concerning the new statute, but it is the one that should come under the most scrutiny.

The law in question is imperfect at best. It makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and gives law enforcement the authority to confirm the immigration status of questionable persons.

The law was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23 and has been the subject of intense scrutiny ever since.

Even with all the controversy, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the law as of May. While suing the pants off of Arizona might help boost Hispanic support of the Democratic Party come November, it will also upset a lot of people.

And why shouldn’t it? While I understand the administration’s reasons for bringing this lawsuit against the besieged border state, I also recognize the glaring error in all of this: While Arizona may be enforcing a flawed law, the federal government is failing the state by not offering an alternative to its problem.

There are, of course, many reasons for the federal government to continue with this lawsuit, the most important of those being that having a patchwork of immigration laws on a state-by-state level will serve no purpose. Theoretically, it makes perfect sense to make an example out of Arizona so other states don’t follow suit.

But the true problem here is not immigration reform.

Migrant workers have been a part of the culture of our southern border states for years. The controversial Arizona law was not born from a festering racist attitude. It is a result of the smoldering drug war being waged in Mexico.

Arizona passed the law in an attempt to gain control of its border. It was imperfect, but it was practical. So until the federal government can offer a practical solution to the violence spilling over from Mexico, it should keep its hands off the state.


E-mail: danfleis@indiana.edu