Editorial: Immigration clarity is needed

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear a case challenging Arizona's restrictive immigration law should make clear what role, if any, the U.S. Constitution allows states to play in policing illegal immigration.

That clarity is badly needed on such a polarizing issue.

Arizona's heavy-handed 2010 law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and for undocumented immigrants to work. It directs police to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop if they believe the person is in the country illegally. And it allows police to arrest people without warrants if they believe they're deportable.

Arizona officials say this is their attempt to do what Washington hasn't: Enforce the law. The Obama administration sued, insisting the federal government has sole responsibility for immigration enforcement, and in April a federal appeals court blocked those provisions of the Arizona law.

Congress has failed to deliver immigration reform. So have President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush. Still, border security has been tightened and Obama is on pace for a record number of deportations.

Yet enforcement could be tougher and that's why, in addition to Arizona, South Carolina and Utah have enacted their own laws. State officials are frustrated.

But 50 immigration policies would be unworkable. The Supreme Court needs to tell states what tactics they can use to combat illegal immigration if the federal government won't do its job.