PHOENIX — The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, calling it a law that blatantly violates the Constitution.

The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona’s action, declaring that the law will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while altogether ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations.

State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, an outspoken conservative in the House, favors following Arizona’s lead, and some of Waco’s state lawmakers said they agree.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the federal lawsuit against her state’s immigration law is a mistake and maintains that the law does not violate the Constitution.
Doug Mills/The New York Times

State Rep. Charles “Doc” Anderson, R-Waco, called passing an Arizona-style law a high priority, pointing to what he said were unacceptable levels of drug violence on the Mexican border.

“We have to protect the people in Texas,” Anderson said, “because it’s only a matter of time till someone over here gets caught out in these shootouts.”

Recently elected state Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, said passing an immigration law similar to Arizona’s is among his top three priorities.

Birdwell also was critical of the Obama administration for challenging the law.

The local delegation was not unanimous in their support of the law, however.

State Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, criticized provisions in Arizona’s law requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship and law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people during stops when there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally.

“What that’ll do is make life harder on lawful citizens,” Dunnam said.

Anderson dismissed the notion that certain provisions in Arizona’s law could lead to racial profiling.

He accused politicians critical of the bill of “using the race card” and trying to curry “votes with Hispanic citizens in November.”

U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said, “I understand the frustrations that led to the passage of this law because our borders have not been adequately protected.”

The question of whether the law is constitutional should be determined by a court, he said.

Edwards’ GOP challenger, Bill Flores, of Bryan, critiqued the legal challenge and the government, which he said instead should be “protecting Americans who are threatened by border violence.”

In similar fashion, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement, “I’m disappointed the administration has made suing Arizona its priority.”

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the lawsuit “a terribly bad decision.”

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders.

The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal laws override state laws.

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit says.

Staff writer Michael W. Shapiro contributed to this story.