Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

It would appear that as we asked on May 20, 2010 at a discussion about Arizona's new immigration law hosted by the Independent Women’s Forum and the Supreme Court Institute of the Georgetown University Law Center (C-SPAN), Arizona’s new immigration law is in fact the Obama Administration’s Birmingham.  Just as Bull Connor's Birmingham was a tipping point that forced the federal government to do something about protecting the civil rights of millions of Americans, Arizona’s new immigration law is a tipping point that is forcing policy makers to do something about our nation’s illegal immigration problem.
Two months ago, the consensus among the speakers at our event was that although there is a real need for immigration reform on many levels, coming to an agreement as to what to do and how to do it would not be not be easy; nor was it an excuse for the Administration or Congress not to act. 

The Administration has now acted, but it’s not enough.  Although the Justice Department lawsuit might appease some voters in the short term, the lawsuit will not result in any real gains for Democrats or Republicans.  Most polls show that President Obama’s job approval rating is about 46% and Congressional job approval ratings average about 20%.  Without the President and Congress coming  together to pass a border security bill that will reassure Americans, including those in border states like Arizona, that the federal government is in control of the border and is willing and able to enforce all laws that meet constitutional muster, neither Democrats nor Republicans are helped by the Administration’s lawsuit.   Americans have little confidence that our government actually works and both parties should expect to see the full wrath of voters in November 2010 and again in 2012.

As I stated in a blog post a few weeks ago, policy makers should look for a free market solution to illegal immigration and border security issues like the "Red Card" solution proposed by Helen Krieble and many Hispanic entrepreneurs. (http://redcardsolution.com.)  The Red Card solution is  a border control and non-immigrant work program that doesn't call for amnesty and doesn't require citizenship.  The proposed program would allow non-immigrant workers to enter the United States in one of two ways: (1) as non-immigrant workers; or (2) as immigrants applying for citizenship.  This solution "introduces private management of a non-immigrant worker program, powerful incentive for [illegals] already in the U.S. to go outside our borders, apply for legal admission, and eliminate the open border problem."  A solution like this, coupled with true border security and enforcement of existing federal immigration laws may well eliminate the numbers of illegals entering the country as well as the very real possibility of racial profiling in the application of laws like Arizona's.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
The administration's lawsuit against Arizona will hurt them: most Americans opposes the de facto open borders policy supported by the White House and many Republicans in Congress.. This is an especially tone-deaf move as we approach election season and have record unemployment.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog Contributor, said:
Long term it will help everyone. It is the beginning of a historic movement which will shift responsibilities and rights from a distant central government to new regional circles of responsibilities, returnig governance to people on a more mature  basis and one closer to Jefferson than Hamilton. As Gerald Celente of Trends 2000 said, regionality and state sovereignty is the rising trend of the century throughout the world. This is not a particularly good case, and the state will lose it, but it is a start.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:
 If it's covered accurately, the law will help the Dems.

John F. McManus, President of The John Birch Society, said:
Because the voting public is so largely aware of the illegal immigration problem, and because a high percentage of voters are critical of the federal government's failure to meet its obligation to protect the states against invasion, the federal suit filed by the Democrat administration to challenge Arizona's law will harm Democrats in the fall.
There are many issues facing our nation but few are as easily understood as the illegal immigration problem.  A portion of the state of Arizona has even been seized by armed Mexican drug peddlers and human traffickers.  The situation at our nation's southern border, Arizona certainly included, is deteriorating and many Americans are aware of how serious the problem is.  Most voters agree with Arizona's attempt to deal with the situation.
If the federal government had decided to beef up border patrol, clean out the armed Mexicans who have seized a portion of Arizona, and exhibited a real determination to meet its responsibilities, Democrats might have been helped in the fall elections.  But President Obama and Attorney General Holder did exactly the opposite of what they should do by suing the aggrieved state of Arizona.  All Democrats will have to answer for this glaring deficiency.
The illegal immigration problem affects most other states.  In fact, quite a few are considering copying the Arizona law.  While the federal suit against Arizona might slow other states from enacting similar legislation, the sentiment favoring what Arizona has done is real, and it is growing everywhere.
The Obama administration has handed all Republicans and Republican challengers an excellent topic to capitalize on during the fall election season.