Yeshivah of Flatbush High School
Fall 2013
Do you agree with the recent immigration laws in Arizona and California?
Arizona enacted two Laws, SB 1070 and HB 2162, in April 2010 to address immigration in the state. These laws included new state requirements, the crimes and penalization related to immigration laws enforcement and the laws were to become effective on the 29th of July 2010. Before the legislations could be effected, the department of justice in the United States filed a lawsuit asking for injunction against these laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. This lawsuit gave a signal that the laws were not welcome especially by the larger department of Justice in the United States.
Several questions have been asked about the constitutionality of the immigration laws. Some concerns that have been raised include the costs that could be incurred by the state in the process of enforcing these laws especially in tight budget and economic times, how the interpretation of reasonable suspicion of the status of immigrants will be determined and the list of documents of eligibility to be produced to demonstrate lawful presence among other hitches. The constitutional issues that were raised in the court challenges including the due process, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, and equal protection under 4th amendment cannot be assumed when talking about the immigration laws. All these facts go a long way in proving that immigration laws introduced in the state of Arizona were not very necessary.
The proponents of the laws argue that the immigrants should be regulated on the grounds of strained economy, increased healthcare costs, and increased crimes. Regarding straining the economy, they argue that illegal immigrants have made it difficult for most of the American citizens to get employment. The supporters of this idea forget that illegal immigrants, as they may be referred to, take up jobs that have been turned down by the Americans. Others do argue that illegal immigrants do not pay tax, yet immigrants do pay higher tax and do not enjoy the benefits that come from taxes that they pay. The immigrants contribute to the government yet they cannot apply for the welfare or the government’s programs that are funded to give away money. In essence, and concerning health care costs, immigrants contribute by paying taxes yet they do not enjoy the subsidized insurance medical facility. Concerning crimes, anyone can be a criminal whether an immigrant or a citizen. Criminals do not need to be immigrants in order for them to execute their criminal activities. It is therefore upon the security agencies to employ strict measures to take care of criminal activities.
Back to the constitutionality of the laws, and the National Association of the Latino Elected and Appointed Officials claimed that the legislation was unconstitutional and a costly measure that was meant to violate and the civil rights of the people of Arizona. The legislation was labeled draconian with the likelihood that it may lead to wrongful questioning and arrest of the rightful citizens of the United States. From this point of view, the legislation had potential infringement of on the civil liberties of the people of Arizona, the lawful permanent residents included. This criticism from the Latino Officials of Arizona has not been without the rejection from the proponents of the legislations who have argued that the immigration laws were limited, carefully crafted and limited. They claim that there is nothing in the legislations that will encourage ethnic and racial profiling, and that the law does not require cities to stop people without cause.
But regarding the reasonable suspicion clause, one can hardly tell what form of suspicion will be admitted without having to go through racial profiling. Besides, from the legal journal articles, it is evident that racial profiling does exist and it threatens human security, particularly of the Hispanic and Mexican communities in the United States. The Patrol in the border is, therefore, likely to stop people with the resemblance that is likely to be from these communities. Such generalization of resemblance in physical features that are unchangeable threatens the culture and the heritage of the ethnic group. It has to be realized that it is only a small proportion of Latinos and Mexicans that are illegal immigrants, there is illogical discrimination and demonization of Latino and Mexican communities by giving minimum respect, freedoms and rights, whereas American citizens that are white will not have to worry concerning being stopped by police thanks to their skin color.
The opposition of this legislation has not only been taking place within the corridors of civilians, but rather the fault had been also seen by the some section of law enforcers. The Association of Chiefs of Police of Arizona has criticized this legislation terming the provisions of the law as being problematic. They have also expressed that the legislation will negatively affect the capability of the law enforcement agencies across the state of Arizona to fulfill their numerous responsibilities in a timely manner. In addition, some of the officers have repeated the past worry that illegal immigrants may end up fearing the police, and then not contact them in emergency situations or instances where they may be in possession of valuable knowledge of a looming crime (Cooper). This poor relationship of the immigrants considered illegal may make them engage in criminal activities given that they are running from police anyway.
It should be understood that the United States as a nation cannot function well if Arizona and other states come up with their own versions of immigration laws that are supposed to be the responsibility of the federal government. These states led by Arizona argue that the federal government is not doing its job of securing borders well. However, the frustration from these states does not mean that they can pursue policies that contravene the federal law. Something that is fundamental to the country such as immigration need to be governed by single laws, and these laws must come from the federal government.
There have been protests, boycotts and concerns over the immigration legislations. While it may not be completely said the illegal immigrants should be allowed in the U.S, some considerate ways of dealing with this issue should be sought. Instead of introducing such laws of immigration that may contradict the laws of the nation, ways of ensuring the borders are secured should be used to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. The protests and boycotts may affect the economy and, therefore, a solution should be found to avoid them. It has been established that driving people suspected to be illegal immigrants will affect the economy negatively apart from the move being seen as being discriminative. I join the opponents of the immigration laws of Arizona.
Work Cited
Cooper, Jonathan J. Arizona Immigration Law Divides Police Across US. Associated Press, May 17, 2010.
Nill, Andrea. "Latinos and S.B. 1070: Demonization, Dehumanization, and Disenfranchisement." Harvard Latino Law Review 14 (Spring) (2011): 35–66.
Schwartz, John and Randal C. Archibold. "A Law Facing a Tough Road Through the Courts." The Newyork Times (April 28, 2010): A17.
York, Byron. A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona. Washington, DC: The Washington Examiner, 2010.
Analysis of Arizona's immigration law: http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/analysis-of-arizonas-immigration-law.aspx
