Schumer, Arizona Immigration Law Author Face Off on the Hill
The senator announced a "contingency plan" if the Supreme Court upholds SB 1070 with a bill to tie the hands of states and localities in enforcement.
April 24, 2012 - 9:43 am
On the eve of a Supreme Court showdown over Arizona’s controversial immigration law, a senator who has vowed to fight any judicial backing of SB 1070 faced the author of the legislation at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), convening his Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, vowed to have a legislative response of his own should the justices uphold the state law that allows police to require proof of residency with probable cause.
“It is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 different states be permitted to take their own direction when it comes to immigration policy,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court should find the Arizona law unconstitutional, but if it doesn’t, Congress will be ready.”
Schumer is planning a bill that would expressly preempt states and localities from enforcing immigration law unless they are doing so with the direct consent and supervision of the federal government.
He cited not only Arizona’s law as the impetus for the federal legislation, but similar laws in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.
“States like Arizona and Alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply ‘helping the federal government’ to enforce the law when they are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with a mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant,” Schumer said at the hearing.
The only senators in attendance were Schumer and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “They’re absent from this hearing just as they’ve been absent from every attempt we’ve made” to craft immigration reform, Schumer sniped of the missing Republicans.
Ranking Member John Cornyn (R-Texas), though, released his thoughts on the “theater” before the hearing began.
“This hearing does nothing to advance immigration reform in Congress or otherwise fix our broken system. It is no more than election-year theater,” Cornyn said.
“The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Arizona’s SB1070 on constitutional grounds. Yet none of the majority’s witnesses is an expert on the complex questions the Court will consider,” the senator continued. “This is not an attempt at having a sincere hearing on the merits. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority seems to have embraced President Obama’s ‘mañana’ approach to immigration reform.”
Schumer argued that the convention and tourism industry in Arizona has lost as much as $140 million and that the Alabama law is projected to shrink the economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the state at least 70,000 jobs per year.
“Our founding fathers gave Congress plenary power over immigration law,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government.”
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who will be in Washington with other state officials for the Supreme Court arguments, declined the invitation to testify before the committee because “she can’t justify the very bill she signed,” charged Arizona state Sen. Steve Gallardo, one of the hearing witnesses.
“We reached out far and wide… no one would come” from the law’s supporters besides Russell Pearce, Schumer said.
And Pearce, the former president of the Arizona state senate who last year became the first state legislator to be removed in a recall election, was there for a full-throated defense of the law.
“I have attended the funerals of citizens and law enforcements officers killed by illegal aliens,” said Pearce, who now leads Ban Amnesty Now. He added that $2.6 billion is spent by his state each year to “educate, medicate, incarcerate” illegal immigrants, and doesn’t reflect jobs lost by legal residents.