Immigration back where it belongs, in Washington

Immigration is one of those issues that so bitterly divide Americans — abortion, guns and taxes are others — that the nation seems doomed to debate them forever.

But occasionally something reshapes even the most polarized debates, and the Supreme Court's decision Monday striking down several provisions of Arizona's tough immigration statute adds to a sense that the ground is shifting.

Though the court upheld the law's controversial "show me your papers" provision, which requires police to demand proof of immigration status if they reasonably suspect someone is in the U.S. illegally, the justices made it clear that provision could also fall if enforcement produces the sort of racial profiling it invites.

Altogether, the decision sharply restricts Arizona's harsh "attrition by enforcement" campaign to drive out illegal immigrants, and it blunts the drive among several states to take immigration law into their own hands. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah all have similar laws that are now vulnerable.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the court's majority opinion, the states do indeed have a problem. Arizona has been overwhelmed by the influx of undocumented immigrants. Though most come simply to work, they badly strain schools and other state services. A significant minority drive up the crime rate and make areas near the border so dangerous that the state warns people not to travel there.

This plainly is Washington's fault. Over a quarter-century, it has failed to make federal immigration laws work. Congress has refused to work out a compromise, or even take up the issue since President Bush's drive for comprehensive immigration overhaul collapsed in 2007.

But now that the court has acknowledged federal primacy in immigration, Washington is where the problem will have to be solved.

The solution is still as plain as it is politically difficult: a law that combines tough border and workplace enforcement with a guest-worker program and a stringent path to legal status for immigrants who stay out of trouble. That won't happen this year, but it ought to be part of the debate in this election year, and on the congressional agenda next year.

Even as the legal battles continue, attitudes appear to be changing. Harsh additions to Arizona's law failed to move through the state legislature. Alabama is revisiting aspects of its law after sharp criticism. And President Obama's recent decision not to deport illegal immigrants brought here as children — even as he's ratcheted up deportations generally — has proved popular enough that Republican challenger Mitt Romney has refused to say whether he'd overturn it.

Adding to this shift are other factors. More people appear to be going from the United States to Mexico these days than the other way around. At the same time, Latinos are the fastest growing part of the population, increasing their voting power. Now the court has focused the debate where it belongs.

In Monday's ruling, the justices said the nation should base its immigration laws "on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse." Perhaps that's naive in today's poisonous political climate. But, little by little, circumstances are changing.