Arizona’s Immigration law – troubling at best
Gov. Jan Brewer
On April, 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed that state’s and the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law (SB1070). Those who oppose the law say that the law (SB 1070) is unconstitutional because it is as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. President Obama called the law “misguided” and said it “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
Supporters of the law, on the other hand, say that the criticism of the law is over the top, not the law itself. They say that the law is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. They say that the law represents another tool for the state of Arizona (which is a border state) to use as it works to solve a crisis which congressional leaders have failed to address with adequate border security and comprehensive immigration overhaul.
Supporters have accused those who oppose the SB 1070 of not reading it. This author has read SB 1070 and has found several parts troubling. First, it is shocking that the law refers to undocumented immigrants as ‘aliens’ from beginning to end. This is a term which most find offensive, and is definitely outdated. Most states have replaced the word ‘alien’ in their laws and policies with the words ‘undocumented immigrant’ – but not Arizona.
The next thing I noticed about the law is that it does not single out any particular nationality. Although Hispanics have been voicing the loudest opposition, (and rightly so because most undocumented immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico) the truth of the matter is that the law’s prohibitions are directed to any and all undocumented immigrants regardless of whether they were born in Mexico, the Caribbean or Canada.
One section of the law states that a law enforcement officer or Agency who has reasonable suspicion to believe that a person he/she comes in lawful contact with is an alien, shall make a reasonable attempt to ascertain that person’s immigration status by verifying it with the federal government. Inherent in this statement is the fact that the officer will ask the person to produce documentation of their status.
This section states that the officer must first be in ‘lawful contact’ with the person he suspects to be undocumented before he can check that person’s status. Some have interpreted ‘lawful contact’ to mean that the officer has already stopped or detained this person suspected of breaking a law (a traffic violation, for example). However, ‘lawful contact’ has a much broader implication and may also include a person who stops an officer to ask for directions, or calls the authorities to make a complaint or report a crime. An officer who responds to a request from a person is in lawful contact with that person. So is the officer who is stopping cars at a sobriety or driver’s license checkpoint.
In addition, what will the officer use to acquire this “reasonable suspicion?” This has led to one of the strongest arguments made by opponents of SB 1070 – that the bill leads to racial profiling. What will cause an officer to have a reasonable suspicion that a person is an undocumented immigrant other than the way the person looks or the way he/she speaks? Will White undocumented immigrants be stopped in equal proportion to non-White ones? Also, think of how many legal immigrants and naturalized citizens will be wrongfully stopped and detained because of the way they look or their accent.
Therefore immigrants who display their nationality on their clothing and on their cars with flags and bumper stickers, etc. should be aware that these acts of national pride may make them targets of law enforcement and lead to them being stopped and asked to provide proof of their status, and worse, deported.
The law also states that an undocumented alien who is convicted of a crime, discharged from prison or assessed a fine may also be deported. Therefore, undocumented immigrants will not rush to get drivers’ licenses, identification cards or purchase homes because any of these things can cause a fine to be assessed against them.
The law also states that agencies and officials may not be prohibited from sending, receiving and exchanging with other agencies information relating to the immigration status of an individual. Therefore, immigrants will think twice before applying for benefits, taking their sick children to the hospital or enrolling them in school.
Included in the law is a provision that makes an undocumented immigrant guilty of trespassing by physically being in the state. Therefore, an undocumented immigrant in Arizona can now arrested by the police for trespassing, and then turned over to the feds for deportation. The law also makes it a crime to hire or pick up an undocumented immigrant in your car for the purposes of hiring him/her. Also, if you are stopped for committing an offense and you are found to have an undocumented immigrant in your car, you can be arrested and your vehicle will be immobilized and impounded if knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the person is an undocumented immigrant.
Although the law has a provision that allows an individual to challenge the law by bringing a lawsuit against an official or agency, how many people will have the money and means to bring such an action?
The bottom line is that SB1070 sends an unmistakable message of hostility and intolerance and basically says that if you are thinking of entering the US illegally or overstaying your visit, do not step foot in Arizona because it will leave no stone unturned in its mission to find you, arrest you, and have you deported.
Related post:
Ms Phillips,
1After reading your article, and especially the last paragraph, the only thing I can think to say is GOOD!!!
Illiegal ALIENS should get the impression that we do not want them crossing the border illegally. That is a crime and we are a nation of laws.
To paraphrase. “No one is above the law. No one is below the law. And the Federal Government should be enforcing the law.
Ms. Phillips,
2I followed a link to your article from a letter to the editor in our local paper. I followed it because the letter led me to believe that you presented a thorough argument against SB 1070. I do my very best as a white male to be very critical of my biases that are related to my ethnicity, or the region where I grew up. That requires I read / listen to people that do not share my initial reaction to situations or political processes. My hope is that by doing this I can make an informed decision. While you did present a thorough argument; it unfortunately was not convincing. You seem to share the opinion that nothing should be done about illegal immigration. Otherwise, why would a reluctance to pursue buying a house, getting appropriate identification, enrolling children in schools, or pursuing healthcare concern you. Further, have you completely missed the fact that the majority of terrorist actions / attempts in our country have been a direct result of agency’s inability to share information or cooperate with one another. It is a widely accepted opinion that our Mexican border is of particular vulnerability to the traffic of hostile terrorists. But none of these reasons address the real issues in AZ. So I would ask you this…How many more have to die, be kidnapped, burglarized, etc. before its okay for “somebody” to do “something.” Does it have to effect you personally before its okay? Perhaps in a show of support for this bill we should all just drive around without our proof of insurance, driver’s license, or vehicle registration. Construction sites should just ignore the need for permits. Restaurants should just tear up their liquor licenses, and police officers should throw away their badges. Would that be a community you want to be a part of?
Mr. Kimbrell, thanks for reading the post and thanks for your comment. My intent was to inform. I felt that a lot of people were hearing sound bites, and don’t know what the law actually says, so I tried to inform.
I am aware of the claim that the Mexico border has been used by terrorists to illegally enter the US. I am also aware of the large number of undocumented immigrants who commit crimes. I also share your feeling that something MUST be done about our ‘open’ borders. Breaking the law (as illegal immigrants do) is never okay. But, the AZ law is not the appropriate remedy.
This law has a lot of problems. I won’t address the apparent ones, such as, can it pass constitutional muster? Is AZ usurping federal authority? What kinds of problems will the police officers face? They are not trained to make the decisions the law requires them to make. They are already overworked and underpaid. They will named as defendants in lawsuits. These are the problems most people are talking about. But, there’s another problem – the application of this law. How practical is it?
How many new jails and holding cells would AZ have to build? What would be the cost? Crime rates will increase in AZ because police officers will be too busy hunting down illegal immigrants instead of walking the beat and protecting communities.
What would happen when illegal immigrants stop reporting crimes, cooperating in investigations, seeking treatment for contagious diseases, registering their kids in school because they are afraid of being arrested? An ugly under-ground existence will be created.
Then there’s the problem of the young children whose parents have been deported. Can AZ’s foster care program sustain this new group?
What about the immigrants who are legal? How many times will they be wrongfully stopped, searched and detained as they try to go about their lives?
I agree. Something has to be done, but AZ’s new law is not the solution. Republicans and Democrats must come together and solve this problem in Congress with immigration reform that will work.
3Hi Wendy, thanks for tackling this subject; I have a few questions.
SB1070 mirrors federal laws that have been in place for over 40 years.
If it is claimed to be unconstitutional, what does that say about federal law, and its enforcement philosophy?
Protecting citizens is a state’s responsibility as well as a federal responsibility; why is the federal government not protecting citizens, Especially in Arizona, Texas and California?
And please rethink the way some of your assertions are phrased, such as:
“Also, think of how many legal immigrants and naturalized citizens will be wrongfully stopped and detained because of the way they look or their accent.” ‘the way they look or their accent’ is misinformation, a downright LIE. This is specifically prohibited in the law’s text. A law has to be violated FIRST, and these two items are not considered valid in assessment. Reasonable suspicion requires more than this statement claims.
“Therefore immigrants who display their nationality on their clothing and on their cars with flags and bumper stickers, etc. should be aware that these acts of national pride may make them targets of law enforcement and
lead to them being stopped and asked to provide proof of their status, and worse, deported.” This also is misinformation, another LIE. A law has to be broken FIRST, and the above is specifically prohibited as a ‘reason’.
“..may also include a person who stops an officer to ask for directions, or calls the authorities to make a complaint or report a crime.” More misinformation. Also, crimestoppers nationwide uses anonymous information. Who approaches a police car to ask for directions? There are plenty of other avenues such as convenience stores, or private citizens on the “street.” This is a misdirection offered by opponents of the law and is a weak argument.
“Crime rates will increase in AZ because police officers will be too busy hunting down illegal immigrants instead of walking the beat and protecting communities.” Here again is a misinformed opinion. No one is going to “hunt down” anybody UNLESS they are already suspected of OTHER criminal activity.
The following, though, really scares me:
“I am aware of the claim that the Mexico border has been used by terrorists to illegally enter the US.” It is unfortunate that the word “claim” is used here. It is a FACT that people from pakistan, iran, somalia, et al have been caught in the last few months. Why ignore this FACT and mention only “canada, mexico or the caribbean?”
Another tragedy like 9/11 is not a matter of IF, it is a question of WHEN. Do you want to live in a country where bombings are a daily occurence, or where Sharia law is the “law of the land”?
If “the AZ law is not the appropriate remedy”, then what is? How would you suggest that people from places other than Mexico be stopped BEFORE there is another tragedy like 9/11?
This law is not aimed specifically at Mexico; one of the driving forces behind it is the very real threat of the Islamic driven ideology taking advantage of a weakness in the federal government regarding the southern border. Previous ways, such as the way the 20 bombers of 9/11 did, of entering the US have been severely restricted–so they find other ways. Does this not give you pause, and wonder about the consequences of failure to prevent this? And, conversely, do the activities of the Islamic ideology proponents, such as CAIR and other organizations, worry you at all?
Again, thank you for the effort, and I applaud your intentions. Since the “intent was to inform”, please inform by learning the specifics, and ask questions and Find Answers, not just opinions. A great disservice is done when misinformation is presented as “a thorough argument.”
Sincerely, Karen
4Ms. Phillips-
Thank you for your response to my post. I appreciate your argument against this bill in your response. It was very well thought out, and expressed an appreciation for its potential ramifications. In my opinion, if there is a good reason to be against this bill it would be the added cost to the state, and individual communities. One question that no one has tackled to my knowledge is the potential cost of this solution, or others. Unfortunately that cost exists regardless of whether the majority is burdened by AZ or the federal government. And, are we actually supposed to believe that the fed will bear all the financial burdens that you referenced. I seriously doubt it.
I did note the other day that President Obama is sending 1200? armed and unarmed National Guardsmen, and $250 million dollars to help reinforce the border. According to McCain its not enough; at least the fed is doing something I say. Which may in fact be the true beauty of this law in AZ. If it can persuade the fed to do something then perhaps it has served its purpose. I don’t support this type of legislating, but I suppose it could be a necessary evil in this circumstance.
“Some” may be claiming unconstitutionality, and potential burdens on law enforcement officers, but I would say “most” are claiming a problem with racial profiling. Our President, Attorney General, and head of Homeland Security all famously spoke out against this law on those grounds, and all admitted not having read the law before doing so. Mr. Obama only claimed its unconstitutionality as a way to strike it down, but it certainly didn’t sound like his primary objection to the law. While there may be other problems, the fear of racial profiling is the unifying principle.
Gov. Brewer, in her statement upon signing the law, ordered work to begin immediately on developing a plan to train officers to enforce it appropriately. How does one reason that a police officer can be trained to use lethal force appropriately, but not trained to properly engage a potential illegal immigrant without racial profiling? That is hard for me to understand. And would someone please be honest about this…illegal immigrants frequently don’t speak English well, or at all, and don’t have proper documentation. There is really not a way around this.
The reality for AZ is that the hispanic community on the whole is just that…a community. They historically have a strong sense of solidarity, and therefore unify around any circumstance that may affect someone they know, even if said individual is doing something illegal. Therefore they are unified against any reform, and will always run to racial profiling in order to sway people to their side.
But, if you know immigrants from europe, the middle-east, etc. they often have a very strong opinion about obtaining citizenship legally. I would say those reasons are two-fold: 1) they often don’t know others or have family that came here illegally 2) they often came here in order to escape some form of oppression. So they rarely have objection to the enforcement of immigration laws, and do not appreciate the trivial position of the hispanic community on illegal immigration.
Finally, much like the “cost” of reforming immigration, the potential for the creation of an undesirable subculture exists regardless of the solution. It exists because the pendulum always swings too far.
Again, thank you for your response. I appreciate any further comments you may have. Even if you think I’m “nuts.”
Kyle Kimbrell
5All of this sounds perfectly reasonable. In fact, they should just require all people to provide documentation just as you have to show your drivers license, proof of insurance, and registration when you are pulled over for a traffic stop.
6