Even liberals skeptical of administration arguments against Arizona immigration law

LA Times:

The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments Wednesday over Arizona’s tough immigration law, suggested they were inclined to uphold parts of the state’s law but may block other parts.

The Obama administration lawyer who wanted the entire law struck down ran into skeptical questions from most of the justices, who said they saw no problem with requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people who are stopped.

But the justices also said they were troubled by parts of the Arizona law that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not carry documents or seek work. The stop-and-arrest provision has been the most contested part of the law.

Before U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. could deliver his opening comments, chief justice John Roberts in an unusual move interrupted to say that “no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling.”

Verrilli agreed and said Arizona’s law should be struck down because it conflicts with the federal government’s “exclusive” power of immigration.

But he ran into a barrage of skeptical questions, including from some of the court’s liberals. Justice Stephen Breyer said he did not see why Arizona’s police would violate federal immigration law if they simply notified federal agents they had a possible illegal immigrant in custody. Breyer said he would be concerned only if the state said it could arrest and jail illegal aliens on its own.

Near the end of the argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, advised Verrilli he needed a stronger argument than the ones he delivered. His argument “is not selling very well,” she commented.

But the questions also suggested the court may hand down a split decision. Most of the justices, including  Roberts, said they were troubled by two parts of the Arizona law. One would make it a state crime for aliens not to carry documents. A second would make it a state crime for illegal aliens to look for work.

...

Since the court has already upheld Arizona's law making it illegal for a business to offer jobs to illegal aliens, the provision making it unlawful to look for work is not as important.  I am not troubled by the state making it a crime to be in the state without documentation, since federal law already requires that of immigrants.

The court is right to say, there is noting wrong with inquiring about immigration status of those in custody and then notifying the federal government if the person is in the country illegally. Sotomayor is right, the Obama administration argument is not selling with the court or with the majority of voters.