States keep on slugging.

• Author: Wildes, Michael
• Position: Immigration law - AMERICAN JUSTICE

SOUTH CAROLINA'S most recent anti-immigration act serves as yet another example of a state legislature's attempt to usurp Federal authority in regulating immigration affairs. In June 2010, legislators passed Act No. 69, which requires local authorities to investigate the immigration status of Individuals who have been stopped or arrested by the police, based on a "reasonable suspicion" that such parties may be unlawfully present. Eerily reminiscent of Arizona's notorious S.B. 1070, South Carolina's newest provisions unconstitutionally preempt the Federal government's exclusive power to enforce immigration laws and polities. Specifically, the act empowers local law enforcement officials to impose punitive sanctions on suspected unlawful immigrants, an enforcement method that clearly falls outside the boundaries of a state's legitimate police power. Moreover, the ultimate consequences of such a rigid approach to immigration enforcement is likely to cause profiling and harassment by local authorities, who will be screening scores of suspect immigrant classes with minimal supervision.

The Department of Justice has responded in a similar fashion to Act No. 69 to the way it did with states like Arizona and Alabama, who previously proffered their own form of patchwork-style immigration repair. The DOJ challenged South Carolina's act in Federal court, requesting an injunction that would prevent the state law from coming into effect.

As a longtime proponent of comprehensive Federal immigration reform, I remain reserved in my enthusiasm to the DOJ's response. While the Department's actions have been swift in defending the Constitution and ensuring equality and due process for all of its citizens, prior attempts at running judicial interference to prevent against a state's abuse of its police power have had limited success. For instance, the DOJ successfully blocked most portions of Arizona's anti-immigration agenda before it was implemented, but was significantly less successful the second time around in challenging Alabama's H.B. 56 law, that was strikingly similar to its predecessor. U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn ruled on Sept. 28 that most portions of the Alabama law still could go into effect, despite the fact that the same DOJ argued in the Arizona proceeding that the law preempted Federal immigration authority and could lead to civil rights violations. While the issue currently is on appeal, illegal aliens are remaining at home, fearful...