Arizona Senate Bill 1070 was passed into law by Republican Governor Jan Brewer on Friday, April 23, 2010. The law states that it is a state misdemeanor to illegally reside within the state of Arizona—illegal status being defined as being present within the state without documentation of legal status. According to the law, documentation such as a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid Arizona non-operating identification license, a tribal enrollment card, or any other valid state or federally issued form of identification would function as proof of status.
Arizona has a 389 mile border with Mexico and currently has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Since SB1070 was signed into law one week ago, the opposition has staged several protests throughout the state of Arizona. The opposition claims that the law will give rise to racial profiling and the harassment of legal American citizens of Hispanic descent, some comparing the law to the policies of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Many have further suggested that the law is unconstitutional—in violation, specifically, of the 14th amendment.
(Link to Fourteenth Amendment Text)
The New York Times reported Thursday that several major civil rights and legal groups have announced that they plan to take legal actions to block the law.
While the law will most probably be struck down in court, this does not necessarily entail that every facet of this law is erroneous or unethical. In fact, the SB1070 suffers more from a lack of specificity than anything else—not unlike the recently overturned laws about ‘crush videos’.
In the law it is stated that police may ask individuals about their immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” of their being illegal; the definition of reasonable suspicion needs to be tightened in such a way that only those being questioned in regards to their having commit an illegal act should be questioned in regards to their status. This would remove the fear that ‘racial profiling’ could occur as a result of the enactment of this law. No one wants to go about harassing and deporting Esteban Colberto for dancing with his chicas on Colberto Reporto Gigante; that is not the intention of this law.
In Jon Stewart’s portrayal of the law on The Daily Show, Wyatt Cenac is asked for identification while Jason Jones is not even given a second glance, and it is true that this could happen the way the law is currently written; therefore, the wording should be reworked as to avoid such a situation.
It does not matter if one is white, black, brown, or blue like in Avatar: if a person is here illegally they should be deported. That is, Sean Hannity’s friend Sven from Sweden does not get a pass because he has blue eyes and blonde hair.
Other arguments against the SB1070 have also arisen.
Some have said that there are illegal immigrants who are stand-up people, family people just trying to find work and make a living. They believe that such individuals should not get deported just because they get stopped for jaywalking or committing some other, trivial crime. The problem with such an argument, however, is that, by being in this country illegally, they have already commit an illegal act and are not, therefore, stand-up people who deserve such leniencies.
If a legal citizen was driving down the street and happened to run a red light, most any police officer present would pull them over in order to write them a ticket for violating traffic laws. This process would involve the person in question providing the officer with their license and registration. If, in the process of this routine check, the officer was to discover a stash of cocaine in the glove compartment, chances are that the officer would take action against the person for that violation as well.
The same applies with illegal aliens—if an illegal is stopped for committing some sort of crime (however serious or trivial) and thus is revealed to be in the country illegally, there is no reason why they the individual should not face punishment—deportation—for that crime as well.
There are those who would, at this juncture, inquire as to the family of such an illegal immigrant. The answer to such a question would be quite simple.
If the individual’s family is in the country legally, the family can go through the legal process in order to legally bring over the family member in question. If, on the other hand, the individual’s family is also illegal, they would have two options. They could either:
a)Stay in the United States, be separated from their family member, and hope that they too do not get caught and deported at some later point in time, or;
b)Go back to their home country with their family member and all be together outside of US borders, where they rightfully belong.
Lastly, for those who argue that there is no way to get rid of all the Mexicans, and that they are here to stay: bravo.
That is absolutely true. One could never get rid of all of the Mexicans and, as a matter of fact, one is probably a racist if that is what one wants. It is right to get rid of illegal immigrants (from Mexico or otherwise). Any legal citizen, however, deserves to be within US borders, their heritage notwithstanding; anyone who would deny the right of legal citizens to be here is, indeed, in the wrong.
