More than four months have gone by since the passage of SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, yet the controversy vigorously continues. The law may contain common sense and sound policy, but it remains meaningless because it simply reflects federal law.

Opponents of the law criticize the requirement to carry proof of alien registration documents at all times as an unnecessary burden. What they fail to take into account is that existing federal law ? U.S. Code Title 8, Section 1304e ? already mandates the same requirement. Not carrying some form of identification is like driving without a driver’s license.

Furthermore, state officials are only permitted to ask questions regarding immigration status while enforcing another law, such as a traffic stop. This is not so with the federal statute. Still, how hard is it to carry around a green card or passport?

Even without the new immigration law, local officers have the authority to enforce federal law. In the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court ruled that police questioning of immigration status does not amount to a breach of the Fourth Amendment.

The final question, then, is whether the Arizona immigration law is constitutional or not. The Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8 that Congress has the authority to create laws regarding naturalization, or the process of becoming a citizen. There is no mention of the power to control or regulate actual immigration to this country.

Unfortunately, rules on naturalization would be difficult if every state had its own immigration policy. Even so, a state law that reinforces existing law should not be an issue. Arizona would not need this law if President Obama had kept his campaign promise to be tight on illegal immigration.

It seems clear that the problem is not dysfunctional legislation, but dysfunctional politicians on Capitol Hill who refuse to enforce their own laws and criticize Arizona’s efforts.

For more on politics, read the Sept. 1 article, Boxer, Fiorina clash in senatorial debate.

Tweet