Arizona’s Immigration Law: Arizona SB 1070, is it racist? or realist?

The excerpt and image below was taken from Wikipedia.  For more information on this matter, please follow the Wiki link.

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (introduced as Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and thus often referred to simply as Arizona SB 1070) is a legislative Act in the U.S. state of Arizona that at the time of passage was the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in recent U.S. history.[2] It has received national and international attention and has spurred considerable controversy.[3][4]

U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days[5] to register with the U.S. government,[6] and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.[7] The Arizona Act additionally makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual’s immigration status during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant,[9] bars state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws,[10] and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens.[11] The paragraph on intent in the legislation says it embodies an “attrition through enforcement” doctrine.[12][13]

Critics of the legislation say it encourages racial profiling, while supporters say the law prohibits the use of race as the sole basis for investigating immigration status.[14] The law was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162 within a week of its signing with the goal of addressing some of these concerns. There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[15] including boycotts and calls for boycotts of Arizona.[16] Polling has found the law to have majority support in Arizona and nationwide.[17][18][19][20] Passage of the measure has prompted other states to consider adopting similar legislation.[21]

The Act was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010.[2] It was scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010, ninety days after the end of the legislative session.[22][23] Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law were filed, including one by the United States Department of Justice, that also asked for an injunction against enforcement of the law.[24] The day before the law was to take effect, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the law’s most controversial provisions.[25] Arizona has sought, unsuccessfully to date, to reverse that decision in the federal appeals courts.


9 thoughts on “Arizona’s Immigration Law: Arizona SB 1070, is it racist? or realist?

  1. This law has its pro’s and con’s.
    I like it because it protects the legal citizens from the illegal ones – who do not aid in any economic development by not paying taxes, not participating in jury duty etc.
    At the same time, this law will increase racial profiling since the police will always be on a lookout for individuals who are violating immigration law.

  2. There are no pros to this law. It doesn’t protect anyone but the racists that drafted the law from having to view immigrants on the street. Regardless of the intent of the ‘modifications’ to the law, its passing has resulted in the sanctioning of state terror on all people of a brown skin complexion.

    Also, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, as no person can be deemed illegal. They are undocumented immigrants and they are as much people as anyone else.

  3. I’ve heard much about this law and I believe that it is a slippery slope. If the state can confer this much discretionary power on law enforcement, we should not be surprised to find that power being deployed arbitrarily as I–and it seems many others–think it will. Racial profiling is virtually codified in the law itself–similar to legalized “street capital punishment” in “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws.

  4. …To gerglion’s point, I agree. I do think it is a bit of a misnomer to call people “illegal.” Words have power–if not tangible–though I think they do–then at least expressive potency. Labeling someone not born in America as illegal seems improper and callous. No one is illegal for being a person. They can commit illegal acts–do things that ‘break the law’. I follow Anonymous’ point, but I also see gerglion’s linguistic-semantic argument.

    And unless when one purchases food, clothing or any other good, they aren’t paying sales tax, which is a part of “economic development”–in the sense that such revenue is taken in by the state and appropriated at the state’s discretion– then undocumented immigrants are participating economically. Though, again, I get your point Anonymous, on the other taxation which, perhaps, they can evade by virtue of being undocumented.

  5. There have been a number of studies done to measure how much states and the federal government financially benefit from undocumented immigrants due to immigrants use of fake social security numbers, leading to them paying state/federal income taxes, as well as social security (and related paycheck deductions), while being unable to actually receive any of the benefits due to being undocumented. The only ones not benefiting from this situation are the workers, be them documented, undocumented, citizens, whatever through the use of vile, racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric by companies and the government.

  6. What’s the matter with their home country? Why come here. If they don’t limke it there and their government is corrupted like ours…stay and fight.

  7. Fg:

    It is very easy for one, I think, to take your position of indifference. I believe, however, that positions like that expose all that is wrong with our country: we say that we are “out of many one” (e pluribus unum); that we are a nation of immigrants–a melting pot; we celebrate our multicultural heritage in rhetoric, but when others want to share in that grand narrative of America, and all that it stands for, suddenly they aren’t welcome. It’s a bit hypocritical.

    I agree that immigration ought to be regulated and should provide a process toward full citizenship for those who would like to move to America. However, I cannot assent to draconian, prejudiced laws that criminalize and stigmatize a group of people because they “look like they might be undocumented”–and very unfortunately, that’s exactly what this law prescribes it seems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s