Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration - Research Paper Example

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration Arizona passed bill 1070 amending the state’s Constitution in 2010. According to Arizona Senate (2010), Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509 to read: Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification.” All illegal immigrants residing or visiting the state of Arizona will be subjected to fines and enforcement not limited to deportation. This bill extends to illegal immigrants residing or visiting private property located in the state of Arizona. Moreover, this bill gives police the right to detain people on reasonable suspicion. According to Archibold (2010), police officers have the right to detain people when “they reasonably suspect are in the country without in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or medical treatment.” Enforcement of this act is punishable by a five hundred dollar fine for first time offenders. However, if the person found in violation of this act is found guilty of any offenses that constitute a class three or four felony the individual in question may be subjected to appropriate jail time and deported. Class three felonies include being in possession of illicit drugs with the exception of possession of marijuana. In addition any employer found employing an illegal immigrant will be immediately ordered by a judge to terminate all illegal immigrants the employer is employing. The employer will then be placed on a probationary status for three years. If within the three year period the business is found employing illegal immigrants the business will be shut down immediately. Federal law enforces the notion that illegal immigrants caught residing in the United States will be subjected to fine and deportation. However, throughout the United States few police departments are able to enforce this federal law. Instead federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) provide the enforcement of federal law. According to Immigrations and Customers (n.d.) “ICE’s primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customers, trade and immigration.” The differentiation between the mission Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the passage of Arizona’s bill 1070 is that Arizona is now giving local police departments the right to enforce federal and local laws in regard to immigration. Moreover, some of the original precedents outlined in the bill have been over-turned as unconstitutional. Initially the bill sought to make immigrants in the United States in Arizona carry their security clearance papers with them at all times. However, this addition to the bill was overturned. The passage of the bill is meant to lower the rate of violent crimes occurring in Arizona. Arizona is geographically close to Mexico. Present problems in Mexico include a notorious war on drugs that has led to an increase of violence. In further many Mexican cartel members are utilizing borders that are geographically close to Mexico in order to deliver contraband into the United States. According to CNN (2010, “Border violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of the drug cartels.” Yet some citizens of Mexico cross the borders into the United States in order to run from problems associated with the cartel. Moreover, there has been a continuous spill over of violence in Mexico finding its way to the United States. According to The Huffington Post (2010), Cartel Killings in Mexico placed Texas on a high alert. The high alert was due to the notion that many Mexican citizens illegally immigrate into Texas in order to avoid prosecution from the Mexican Cartel. Current estimates conclude that there are approximately 460,000 illegal residing in Arizona (Arizona Central, 2010). Moreover, the crime rate of Arizona is high in comparison to the national rate of crime. In comparison cities in Arizona that are geographically closer to Mexico experience more violent crimes in general. According to Arizona State University (n.d.), “With the exception of 1976, the Phoenix murder rate is consistently higher than the national and state rates as well as all other major Arizona cities.” From a geographical perspective illegal immigrants are more likely to come into the United States through Phoenix in comparison to Flagstaff. This is due to the notion that Phoenix is located farther south than Flagstaff. Proponents of the bill argue that Arizona as a state has the right to protect citizens. According to Arizona Central 2010, “The U.S. Constitution says the federal government shall protect states from foreign invasion. The federal government has not done that. People are being attack.” Proponents argue that the federal government has already enacted legislations that prevent illegal immigrants from residing in the United States unless the immigrant has provided the United States government with security clearance. Security clearance is often given through employment as large companies utilize vacancies in executive positions for the promotions of current workers. Moreover, the United States allows many students to gain security clearance to receive education in the United States. These individuals are allowed to gain citizenship only after seven years residing in the United States and passing the Constitution test. Proponents of Arizona’s bill argue that these steps are in place in order to monitor immigrants in the United States. In further, these immigrants coming into the United States often are not problematic to local enforcement agencies. In contrast individuals coming into the United States illegally are not taking the proper measures to ensure the safety of United States citizens. In contrast opponents of the bill argue that Arizona’s enforcement of bill 1070 may cause a rise in racial profiling. Moreover, some opponents believe that states cannot grant the rights to allow enforcement of immigration control as these powers are designated to the federal government. In contrast opponents feel that the federal government needs to focus on immigration reforms. Moreover, the passage of bill 1070 is thought to demonstrate the frustrations endured b United States citizens in regard to immigration. According to Condon (2010), Republican Senator Lindsey Graham believes, “that the law reflects what good people will do when they are left with no other options.” However, the United States Federal government provides rights to illegal aliens facing deportation. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in Calcano-Martinez V. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s that all illegal immigrants facing deportation are allowed how their cases have reviewed by the courts before deportation. This case overturns the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which states that illegal immigrants are not allowed to have a judicial hearing in regard to deportation. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2001), “Today's ruling preserves the fundamental principle that no matter who you are, you are entitled to your day in court under our system of justice.” Moreover, immigrants here on security clearances that commit violations of the terms including felonies are allowed to have a court hearing. This Supreme Court ruling further complicates the precedents set forth in Arizona’s immigration act. In contrast the Supreme Court found in Reno V. American Arab Anti-Discrimination that illegal immigrants cannot be targeted due to their minority status (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Moreover, this case alleged that the defendants were being deported for being Arab Americans. The defendants cited that their civil rights were violated. The government alleged that the defendants were a part of a terrorist group. However, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower appellate court and decided that the individuals should be deported for being in this the United States illegally. In regard to Arizona’s immigration I act I believe that the Arizona is justified under Constitutional precedents to enforce the United States Constitution. The primary concern of Arizona is to protect the lives of citizens of their state. The current violence in Mexico in regard to the drug cartel has proven to make neighboring states unsafe. As previously demonstrated Arizona has had an increase in violent crimes including kidnapping in the past decade. Moreover, many local law enforcement agencies have assisted federal agencies in the enforcement of laws. In further there are proper steps that allow immigrants to live in the United States and eventually gain citizenship. In this regard residing in the United States illegally is unfair to those that have taken the proper steps and gained citizenship. Opponents argue that this law is unconstitutional and may enforce racial stereotyping. However, the Supreme Court ruling in Reno V. American Arab Anti-Discrimination demonstrates that the racial background of the illegal immigrant is not relevant in determining if he or she should be allowed to stay in the United States illegally. In further Arizona’s immigration laws allow for the proper procedure to be followed in order to ensure the safety of the illegal immigrant. Under this act law enforcement cannot interfere with medical treatment if he or she believes the individual is an illegal immigrant. References Archibold, R.C., Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. The New York Times. April 23, 2010. Web. November 6, 2010 Arizona immigration law: History and Background. Arizona Central. 2010. Web. November 6, 2010 Calcano-Martinez V. INS. Cornell Law School. Web. November 6, 22010. Cartel Killing Place Texas and Mexico on High Alert. The Huffington Post. March 16, 2010. Web. November 6, 2010 Condon, S., Lindsey Graham: I think Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional. CBS News. April 27, 2010. Web. November 6, 2010. ICE Overview. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Web. November 6, 2010. Justice for All Includes Legal Immigrants Facing Deportation Supreme Court Rules. American Civil Liberties Union. June 25, 2001. Web. November 6, 2010 Reno V. American Arab Anti-Discrimination. Cornell Law School. Web. November 6, 2010. Senate Bill 1070. State of Arizona Senate. 2010. Web. November 4, 2010. The Arizona Fact Book On Violence. Arizona State University. Web. November 6, 2010. Read More