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 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.

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.