Washington, D.C. – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today released the following statement following the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070immigration crackdown law. Rep. Grijalva attended this morning’s oral arguments and spoke before a crowd of SB 1070 opponents on the Supreme Court steps after the hearing ended.

“Two years ago, Gov.Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into lawandset a political fire that we’ve seen spread across the country. We’ve seen firsthand the humanitarian and economic injustices SB 1070 has caused – the harassment and profiling of those who appear ‘foreign,’the unjustified separation of families,and the devastation of our local and regional economy.

“Those who support SB 1070 need to consider what’s truly at stake in this case. The issue here is not just immigration. A federal government that lacks supremacy over the states when setting national policy is a federal government that, in many ways, has ceased to exist. If the Supreme Court upholds this law, supporters have to wonder what’s next. Will states be able to set their own foreign policy? Will Arizona be able to sign binding trade agreements directly with Mexico, without federal involvement? Is that a Pandora’s box we really want to break open?

“The Supreme Court today has a heavy responsibility to provide unity and clarity for the country after so much national division and vitriol. The simple fact is that passing SB 1070 chippedaway at the Constitution, our national unity, and our common sense of justice. Congresshas clear constitutionalauthority in setting immigrationpolicy.The Supreme Court should recognize that authority – doing otherwise threatens more than just Arizona, or any one community. It threatens the ideals of federal democracy that have held strong since the founding of this country.”

In July 2010, Rep. Grijalva applauded the U.S. District Court ruling to enjoin Arizona’s SB 1070.In March 2012, Rep. Grijalva signed a “friend of the court” brief in the Supreme Court’s Arizona v. United States case, co-signed by 67 of his House colleagues, arguing that the law is unconstitutional.The brief is reviewable at http://1.usa.gov/GRBVAD.