This is Chris, Jenny's husband for those who don't know. Pursuant to recent questions by family and non-family members about Arizona’s recent immigration bill, SB 1070 and the recent addendum of HB 2162, Jenny gave me permission to post an explanation about my understanding of the new law(s) and their impact on her public website. Follow the links above to read the laws themselves.In red are the direct criticisms and in blue are excerpts from the law itself:
#1) “The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally.” (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/index.html)
The law requires people to prove lawful presence in the US when applying for state or local benefits. Immigration documents are not required if the person has a driver’s license or state-issued ID card:
A. Notwithstanding any other state law and to the extent permitted by federal law, any agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state that administers any state or local public benefit shall require each natural person who applies for the state or local public benefit to submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the state or local public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:
1. An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2. A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3. A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4. A United States passport.
5. A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6. An I-94 form with a photograph.
7. A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8. A United States certificate of naturalization.
9. A United States certificate of citizenship.
10. A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11. A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.
The above has nothing to do with police officers. At any rate, law enforcement officers already ask people for their “papers” in the form of a driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. However, the law states officers have to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime or traffic violation in order to detain someone in the first placel. Meaning, they have to be able to articulate how a reasonable officer might believe them to be in violation of the law. (For example, witnessing a traffic violation or another citizen witnessing someone shoplift then leave the scene in a specific vehicle. Both are reasonable and Constitutionally-valid reasons to stop someone.) This law already exists in the form of the US Constitution, which no state law can override. Read the language of the bill itself (italics added):
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
The law requires another lawful reason for detaining someone, not merely contacting them on the street because they are Hispanic. I can tell you personally, most officers have no desire to threaten their careers by violating someone’s civil rights. It’s just not worth it. Besides, police officers in Arizona are increasingly short-handed and becoming overwhelmed with the increase in violent crime across the state. I think this will only make officers busier and might increase violence against police (although I think this will be due to the false information, rather than the law itself). Funny how protesters vilify the police on this subject, when they didn't write the thing.
The above also addresses another criticism, that the law will prevent those in the country illegally from reporting crimes. When someone is the victim of or witness to a crime, an officer cannot ask about their residency status (and, frankly, would not want to). As it is now, an unlawful immigrant can receive a temporary visa (a U Visa, I believe - ask Vic or Joy) when they are a victim or witness. This remains unchanged.
#2.) President Obama criticized the bill, calling it “misguided” and stated it threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)
#3.) Mexico's President Felipe Calderon has issued a travel advisory to it's citizens entering the United States [illegally?], saying, "It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."
(http://us-state-policy.suite101.com/article.cfm/razing-arizona-senate-bill-1070)
Again, here’s the language of the bill:
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
I personally feel it was unnecessary to put this language in the bill, because it implies it was not already being done. It reminds me of the Equal Rights Act, which allegedly gave women the same status as men. Doesn’t that presume they did not have it in the first place? Again, ridiculous. Granted, there are certainly some officers who already racially profile, (although I do not believe I have met any). This law does not provide more opportunity or validation to do so. It was wrong, it is still wrong.
Ultimately, the law states:
E. In the implementation of this section, an alien's immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
Only the Federal Government can (still) determine if someone is illegal. This is no different than how things work now. If someone is arrested for DUI, for example, and they have no driver’s license, state ID card, social security number, they cannot state where they went to school and their reported birthday is January 1st or December 24th (both popular dates for some reason when someone was born in a small village and does not actually know their birth date – Vic and Joy can probably validate this), than a reasonable officer would guess that person is not in the country legally. They are booked into jail on the DUI and ICE would then determine their residency status at the jail. With this law, the only thing that changes is that now I would add a charge of Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Card (a class 1 misdemeanor).
Below is a sweeping criticism of the law, which summarizes the absurdities I’ve seen and heard in the media:
SB1070 is a radical anti-immigrant piece of legislation that will open the floodgates to racial profiling and abuses of civil liberties. The law will be challenged in court for both violating individual rights and being an illegal assertion of state authority given the federal government's primary responsibility for border and immigration matters. But in the meantime, the effects of its implementation will be sweeping, since the law:
- Legalizes Racial Profiling: State and local government law enforcement officers are required to determine if a person is illegally in the United States based on a “reasonable suspicion,” an open ended approach that will encourage suspicions based on race. The law does little, if anything, to prohibit police officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate. [The US Constitution already prohibits this. Officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution.]
- Criminalizes immigration, which isn't a crime under federal law: Makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal status. [It criminalizes illegal immigration, which is already illegal. Shocking.]
- Undercuts Federalism: The law grants local police arrest authority for administrative violations of federal immigration law, even though the state police do not even have that authority under federal law. [They are not administrative violations. Bank robbery is also a federal crime, which local police officers can enforce.]
- Criminalizes Speech: The law criminalizes the solicitation of work even though courts have previously ruled that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the First Amendment. [Honestly, I don’t know.]
- Potentially Deters Enforcement of Other Laws: Since the law requires police officers responding to any city ordinance violation to automatically determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant, many local violations won't be reported, consequently diverting law enforcement attention from violent crimes. [Officers enforce all laws without prejudice. An officer has to have reasonable suspicion the person is illegal. It’s not automatic, thank heavens.]
SB1070 Is a Product of a Racist, Anti-Immigrant National Network: The sweep of the law is hardly accidental, since it is the product of a national network of anti-immigrant groups tied to racist hate groups. (http://www.progressivestates.org/node/25081)
Pretty unreal, isn’t it? Even the US Attorney General condemned the law without reading it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404231.html).
This is deja vu for those who remember the President condemned the actions of a police officer for arresting his friend as “acting stupidly” and then admitted he did not actually know what happened. It is clear truth is of no interest to many in the media and our federal government. Why, exactly?
That, my friends, is a question for you…
