So What's Wrong With Arizona's New Immigration Law?
Monday, May 31, 2010 at 07:08AM Posted by: Luis J. Diaz on 5/29/2010 FACTS & ISSUES Despite recent amendments to fix the more obvious problems of SB 1070, the law still provides no guidelines as to what is meant by "reasonable suspicion" in the context of alien status: is it 3 or more Hispanics in a car, a red bandana, a plaid shirt, a migrant worker in the field, or someone speaking Spanish? The reality is that "reasonable suspicion" likely will mean those looking like, sounding like, or acting like the stereotypical undocumented immigrant. However, police officers will be trained to write down things not related to race on their reports like the swerving car, a crooked license plate, talking on a mobile, the seatbelt being unfastened, or some other similar statement that will be difficult to disprove in a court of law and that will pit the relative credibility of a uniformed officer against that of a stereotypical poor immigrant. Notably, Governor Brewer has already announced training on the the subject of "reasonable suspicion" for police officers that one assumes are already experts on the subject. HISTORY & PRECEDENTS SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? The problem starts in Mexico. Thus, any real solution to the problem of illegal immigration and related criminal activity must involve (i) securing our borders, (ii) enacting stronger anti-crime measures, (iii) passing immigration reforms that make economic sense, and (iv) imposing economic sanctions against trade countries that contribute to these types of problems. The Arizona law does not address any of these issues. Instead, it targets the victims of failed policies by both Mexico and the United States. This is equivalent to trying to stop drug trafficking by targeting users and not pushers. We must call on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken immigration laws and to hold our preferred trade partners like Mexico accountable, whether or not it hurts the economic interests of some large Mexican companies and their American partners in the short run. ABOUT USHAA:
Arizona’s recently enacted immigration law (SB 1070, as amended by HB2162) makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and requires the local police to check immigration status and to detain anyone on mere "reasonable suspicion" of being in the country illegally following a "lawful stop, detention or arrest." The law has generated great debate. Advocates say it is needed to fight crime resulting from illegal immigration. Opponents say it will result in the violation of civil liberties. It is an issue that requires a subtantial analysis based on facts, an understanding of American history, and a review of legal precedents involving the abuse and limits of police power.
As confirmed by a recent study from PEW Research Center, the fact is that one in four Americans believe that Hispanics are the racial/ethnic group subject to the most discrimination in America. The study found that 32% of Hispanics 16 or older say they or someone they know has experienced discrimination. Less than half of Hispanics believe that police officers in their community treat Latinos fairly. And, most police chiefs around the country, concerned about the chilling effect of this law, oppose it because of its negative impact on their ability to fight crime, obtain witness cooperation, and other concerns.
If the Arizona law is really targeted at crime prevention stemming from the border, then it would be logical and workable if it simply required "probable cause" of some "criminal activity" before police could check immigration status. While the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" may not seem apparent to a lay person, these are two very different legal standards.
Millions of Americans have shed blood in many wars to preserve the civil rights we now treasure. There are 200 years of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence supporting the proposition that police powers must be narrowly limited to prevent abuse of individual rights - something our founding fathers recognized. Also, the mission of police officers is to fight crime - not to act as immigration agents. Thus, any law that creates supercops with immigration superpowers and that, in its actual application, makes it possible to target, arrest, search and seize persons with certain physical attributes is by its nature suspect and should require a higher standard. On a cursory reading of the law, we are reminded of the phrase made famous by Hitler's infamous Gestapo: "Show me your papers, are your papers in order?" The main difference is that with SB 1070 no "jewish star of David" is necessary for an Arizona supercop to identify the stereotypical immigrant.
Like the Japanese interment laws of the 1940’s, the Arizona law undermines the very notions of equal justice and basic fairness that are fundamental values of every American. As with the interment laws, this legislation is being driven by fear and hysteria and it is expressly directed at a group of people whose physical attributes identify them on first glance as members of a specific racial group. The failure of political leadership in Arizona has allowed people that may "look Mexican" to be singled out whether citizens or not.
Based on our history, we can now anticipate the development of a laundry list of "permissible factors" that can be cited after the fact to justify a "reasonable suspicion" even though race was in fact the first glance consideration in the initial stop. As noted, Governor Brewer has announced training on the the subject of "reasonable suspicion." It is forseeable that Arizona's effort to create supercops with immigration powers will spread like a cancer to other states across the country that do not border Mexico, thereby greatly magnifying the potential civil rights violations to all Hispanic citizens that may look "illegal."
If left unchecked, history teaches that this law could place this great nation on the same slippery slope created by the interment laws, the House Un-American efforts of Senator McCarthy, and similar dark episodes in our history where fear has been used to justify the breach of American civil rights. The eventual apology will ring hollow as it has in times past. In 1988 Congress ultimately passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the interment of Japanese Americans and acknowledged that the government actions were based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."
USHAA is an award-winning non-profit providing economic advocacy, benefits and education programs to ensure that its business and individual members have equal access to contracts, jobs, education and other opportunities provided by our great nation.
Reader Comments (1)
You also assert that 1070 gives, local Arizona Law enforcement the ability to, "detain anyone on mere "reasonable suspicion " of being in the country illegally following a "lawful stop, detention or arrest ." Mr. Diaz, ANY AMERICAN of European, African-American, Native-American, Latino, Asian-Pacific Island descent already lives under the auspices of that requirement and has nothing to do with race.
Factually, one out of two people in the United States of America at some point in their lifetime, will have contact with law enforcement in the normal course of living, whether it be for a traffic infraction or the commission of a crime. A Contact with law enforcement always beings with a reasonable suspicion. So I find this assertion to be a red herring.
Moreover, the requirement was included in Senate Bill 1070 to underscore the specificity of the basis for enforcement actions which arise out of the law and not to create some new arbitrary standard as you imply, Sir. I find this misleading and bordering on demagoguery.
Mr. Diaz, you point out, "The law has generated great debate." Yet, I have not seen one reasonable debate yet. As I pointed out on last Wednesday in my blog entry, "Onward march of the Demagogues: Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, few in power now criticizing the bill have yet even to read 1070. There are those professing to have read the bill, but what becomes clear is that many obviously read the bill with a jaundiced eye, cherry-picking parts which best lend itself to demagoguery and misrepresentation. For all this accusations about racial profiling, and violations of civil liberties, those in opposition appear not to care even one lick about the very real losses suffered by Arizonans, rampant property damage, healthcare and other social costs bankrupting the state and the breakdown in law and order.
You state, "It is an issue that requires a substantial (sic) analysis based on facts, an understanding of American history, and a review of legal precedents involving the abuse and limits of police power..." If that statement in and of itself isn't a political smoke screen, I don't know what is.
Unlike other nations, America is only 233 years old and for all its faults, people are still clamoring to come here. To discuss this issue in the context of American History is little more than a written invitation for the Charlatans weigh in. There are three kinds of history: Incremental History - telling the story relevant to subject matter; Revisionist History - often times outright lies and Howard Zinn-like Nonsense; Then there is Concrete History - what really happened.
Mr. Diaz, perhaps you might spend an hour reading the Oxford Companion the Supreme Court of the United States. In so doing, you will see that this nation has always been about checks on abuses of power long before any immigration question ever darkened its halls.
To use the past American sins of Japanese Internment, The Army-McCarthy hearings woven together with examples of Nazi Germany in the same essay is the purest form demagoguery and pandering.
Few people think we can look to Mexico for any solution. Passing immigration reforms that make "economic" sense? And I thought this debate was about racial profiling? "Comprehensive Immigration (Reform) Legislation" is little more than a liberal buzz word for amnesty. I am personally offended by such a notion.
Like so many other Americans, My family emigrated from Europe...Sweden to be specific. My great grandfather came to this nation in 1903, endured a gruelling 3-week passage on the the HMS Campania and was processed at Ellis Island. He had to have physical exams, had to present certain documents and papers, and had to be approved by the Government prior to his passage into America from Ellis Island. My Great Grandmother, Great aunt and Great uncle came two years later in 1905. My Great Grandmother, who spoke NO ENGLISH, learned by reading newspapers. Finally, my grandfather Gunnar, born one year later in 1906 in Saugus, MA...was first in our family to be American Born. All later became naturalized U.S. Citizens. AND THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES. Why is it too much to ask for those in Mexico to do the same?
Mr Diaz, you have carefully chose your words and frame your arguments judiciously. But in the final analysis your essay is little more than one more piece of demagoguery in the sea of open borders advocacy.