Harassment of Latino Immigrants by the State - Research Paper Example

 Contents Introduction 2 Conceptual Framework 2 Literature Review 5 Methodology 9 Findings & Discussions 10 Definition and Detection of Latino Migrants 10 Immigration Law System 12 Federal Law Versus State Law 14 Public Opinion and Law Enforcement 15 Trends in Dealing with Latino Migrants 16 Critical Analysis 20 Conclusion 21 Works Cited 24 Introduction The United States tightened its immigration laws after 2001 in order to prevent certain classes of migrants and also reduce the nation’s risk exposure to accepting illegal immigrants[Wil10]. Empirical evidence and statistics show that there is a trend towards local laws and practice that encourages harassment directed at a certain class of migrants who come to the United States[Seg13]. These are directly linked to the anti-immigration laws that have been instituted in the United States that renders these immigrants as undocumented persons. The thesis statement for this research is as follows: Harassment Of Latino Immigrants By State And Local Law Enforcement Authorities is strongly linked to the anti-immigration sentiments of people in the United States and this observations prevents them from getting any form of protection under US laws in the face of these harassments. Conceptual Framework Arizona’s Safe Neighborhood Act, 1070 enacted in 2010 gave state authorities the power to arrest and detain immigrants they had reason to believe was an illegal immigrant[Cam111]. This power is in contrast with the fundamental position of US law which requires the federal government to handle issues relating to immigration and deportation[Rom13]. This incident shows that the spate of changes in US migration and public opinion had caused some states to move beyond the powers accorded to them in the US constitution[Ske03]. These states are mainly states in the south that are affected by an influx of illegal migrants, mainly from Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. Hence, some authorities argue that this is just a reactive posture meant to limit the spate of illegal migration into these states. The natural consequence of this actions by states to go beyond the limit of handing over illegal immigrants to federal authorities is that it provided an avenue that allowed some constituents of US law enforcement structure to gain power and authority to do things not authorized by the constitution to these immigrants[Gal13]. This includes various forms of atrocities and violations that are meted out against these Latino migrants in order to prevent them from either entering or settling in the United States. This has been criticized by various civil rights and social groups, particularly groups of Americans who are of Latin American origins. There is a general increase in the trend hate crimes and negative acts targeting persons of Latin American origins[Civ14]. The statistics indicate that hate crimes against Latinos by authorities have increased by at least 100% over the past decade[Civ14]. This shows that a lot a lot of negative things have been done under the guises of new laws and other negative acts are a reflection of the wrong sentiments that are meted out against the Latino migrant population. A hypothesis is a tentative statement made by a researcher at the beginning of a research that is tested for its veracity[Ada14]. Therefore, the causal claims can be put in order to guide the scope of the research. This will give the impetus for the definition of the scope of the research in order to conduct a thorough study to address some key issues relevant to these issues. To this end, the following hypotheses will be made: 1: US public opinions and sentiments play a role in the divestment of the law on immigration into non-constitutional acts; 2: These non-constitutional acts and provisions give way for harassment to be perpetrated by authorities; Research strategy refers to the approach that is used to inquire into a given research topic[Cre13]. This strategy will draw the way relevant legal documents will be collected and analyzed in order to draw conclusions in the study in question[Piq13]. This study can be conducted through a critical review of literature from legal documents as well as reports on incidents that have occurred in the past. A critical review of the US constitutional provisions that define the scope of immigration law will be conducted. The process will include the examination of the US Constitution and its subsequent amendments. This will be followed by an evaluation of cases documented in the media that relates to the harassment of Latino immigrants and the practice of state authorities and other entities identified to harass immigrants. The assessments will culminate in the documentation of important trends and issues. From there, they will be reconciled and there will be a review of whether there has been a departure from the constitutional provisions and the role played by popular opinions in this divergence. From there, important trends on how to constructively and realistically deal with these harassment cases will be deduced from the cases analyzed. After the existing legal practice and constitutional provisions are examined for compatibility, an opinion will be passed on the role of public opinion in the departure from the constitution and how this limits the rights of immigrants and encourages harassment on the part of the authorities. Literature Review This section of the research will critically analyze and review important theories and concepts relating to the migration of people from Latin America, with a particular emphasis on Mexicans and other peoples from the region. As a literature review, the section will critique relevant theories and concepts that are necessary to establish a framework for the actual field work and the interpretation of the findings. This will include a critique of important theories and groundbreaking definitions in order to provide important introductions to discussions in the actual paper. Most people have a view that Latinos and Mexicans are an exotic group of people in the United States. However, researchers like Skerry identify that in most research works, Mexican migrants always argue that “…some of us have been here for three hundred years, some for three days”[Ske95]. This shows that a lot of them have been in America for a long time and they qualify to be given the same level of recognition as any other Anglo-Saxon American. On the other hand, authors like Campbell (1) identify that, there is a large number of Mexicans moving into America with very foreign traits that is different from the culture and tradition of the United States. The fact that Latinos migrants are often illegal, they tend to hide and as such, national policies and processes do not really affect these Latino migrants, although many find ways to eventually become US citizens[Ske00]. Ferro goes on to identify that the lack of English speaking skills and other matters implies that they tend to modify the way and manner in which things are done in the United States and if done properly, these Latino migrants ought to gain more recognition, particularly in the Southern states where most of these migrants enter the United States from (2). However, it is observed by other authorities like Etzioni that most of these Latino groups support each other unofficially, but they do not really support a policy that is flexible towards the immigration of other Latinos from foreign countries[Etz03]. Gallagher and Lippard argue that some of the Latino groups have openly asked for bans on Latino migration but the vast majority tends to support policies that protect the rights of Latino migrants (102). This implies that although their migration is in large numbers, Latino, like other minority groups integrate quite well and take up aspects of the American culture and shun the need to remain a distinct group. Rather, they integrate easily and seek the best for the United States. Segregation exists and it makes it difficult for undocumented migrants from Mexico to integrate into the United States and this encourages the easy spotting and application of inappropriate activities and processes[Par88]. The unique cultural traits and the unique physical features of Mexican Americans make them different from other groups of Americans like African-Americans and White Americans, due to this it is quite easy for authorities and law enforcement agencies to spot them and take action towards deportation of this class of persons in American[Skr02]. Another element presented by Peter Skerry is that most of the recent Mexican migrants face similar economic and social challenges like early European migrants and due to that, it is much easier to draw the net to identify where these persons can be found and arrested for prompt deportation[Ale00]. On the other hand, these immigrants set up ways and means of surviving and this includes identifying safe neighborhoods and jobs that will make them less conspicuous to the law enforcement authorities who can arrest them and deport them[Kel99]. This implies that Latino migrants tend to use various approaches and means to maintain a low key composure that allows them to get jobs and an income, whilst they wait in the country to prevent detection and deportation. Another variable that causes the migration and clamp-down on Latino migrants has to do with the anti-terrorist laws and policies that came to force in the days of George W. Bush and his quest to prevent terrorism in the United States[Fau09]. This new policy has created many processes and frameworks meant to identify important trends and issues that are required for the prevention of terrorists entrance into the United States. Many researchers and authorities identify that the War on Terrorism and its impact on immigration has led to a system and process in which many innocent people are inconvenienced and provided with many limitations due to the excuse of detecting and preventing terrorists from entering the United States[Etz03]. The elements of the PATRIOT Act clearly expanded the scope and competency of the police and other security officials. This includes arbitrary detentions, holding suspects for longer time and the invocation of safety and security laws to carry out various forms of interrogations. This has created a system that has allowed authorities and other agencies to gain important rights to deal with different matters and issues. This has culminated in many functions that target certain classes of people in the United States including members of the Arab, Middle-Eastern and Latino communities. These processes allow various police powers to be handed over to some quarters of society that are not normally handled in the normal sense. Traditionally, the right to remove a given Latino migrant in the United States is in the hands of the federal government and this can be done through a civil proceeding in which a court of competent judicature[Mot10]. However, it must be identified that some states have more of such Latino migrants to deal with than other states, and this is due to various variables like the porosity of the borders and other circumstances[Esc14]. This therefore creates different issues and different circumstances in the various states of the United States of America. This culminates in various needs and requirements for various states and communities. The US Constitution gives States some power to make certain laws and implement them. These laws can be made and influenced by various lawmaking powers that can be invoked by the members of the state[Nev04]. And when citizens and authorities come together to make laws on how the state must be ran, it is difficult for lobby groups and pressure groups to negate such laws. In reality, there are many different activities and processes put in place by Latino residents in affected states like Arizona to prevent the crackdown and the obvious harassment of persons of Mexican and Latin American origins[Nev04]. Obviously, this creates a situation that gives the room for nations and communities to set up state powers and authority that will enable some non-federal authorities to arrest and carry out various forms of deportation within a given state. Section 35 of the Arizona constitution has been amended in order to target illegal immigrants on US soil who entered the US through a breach of federal rules relating to entering the United States[Les13]. This implies that some states can put in place various legal measures and processes that can allow them to deal with illegal migrants in their territory, as long as these new laws are made in a manner that is consistent with the US Constitution. Arizona has systematically created laws that have isolated Latino migrants and other classes of migrants because of the authority that is granted to the state[Maa13]. This has been done in various activities and processes that have been put in place due to Propositions that have been voted upon by the majority of the members of the state. However, these arrangements have not gone through Judicial Review, and as such, they are binding until it is challenged in the US Supreme Court[Les13] Methodology John Stuart Mills presents an approach to conducting a given research, and these are the methods of difference or the method of agreement[Mil73]. This is an approach whereby variables of cause and effect are examined amongst two different population groups that are studied. The investigator values each cause and each effect and tries to identify how each of the two classes of populations being studied react in each instance. In this study, we will examine the immigration systems of two states in the United States of America and its relationship to Latino migrants. Therefore, there will be two sets of variables under review at this point. The cause will be the existing laws in the states and how they are structured in relation to local conditions as well as the effect, which is how they are applied to Latino migrants and its consequences. In this study, California and Arizona will be studied and evaluated in order to identify their immigration systems in relation to Latinos. This will be done through the critique of a number of variables that will compare the two states under the method of difference, propounded by John Stuart Mills. CAUSE EFFECT Definition of Recent Latino Migrants Detection Immigration Law System Definition of Legal Position of Latino Migrants Interaction between State and Federal Law Law enforcement system Public opinions on Latino Migrants Strategy of law enforcement authorities Trends in Dealing with Illegal Latino Migrants Statistics Table 1: Variables for Method of Difference/Agreement Analysis Therefore, based on these five variables, the differences and similarities between Arizona and California in relation to dealing with illegal Latino migrants will be deduced. This will form a basis for the analysis and evaluation of the processes used by the states in order to identify how Latino migrants are viewed in law and how they are treated. Findings & Discussions This section of the research will bring to bear the important findings that were made in the study. It will include the identification of the cause elements as well as its effects on the Latino migrant population in the states under review. Definition and Detection of Latino Migrants Latino citizens are persons who were integrated into the state of California from the 1800s when the Gold Rush commenced. And this is seen as a process whereby the Latinos are seen as an important and a fundamental part of the state. California remains a major gateway for migrants of all classes including Latinos in 2011, 4.8 million migrants which included 37% Latinos naturalized in the state of California[Ame14]. Therefore, Latino migrants are seen as a fundamental class of immigrants in the state’s activities and affairs. Unauthorized migrants in California are seen as a class of people who are generally not targeted by the police and this is a broad class of a diverse group of people which includes Latino migrants. Migrants in California are people who are likely to be employed than Americans, but they make less money than Americans[Pub13]. Thus, the general sentiment in California is that Latino migrants are part of a broad class of people who are generally made to work for little money. Detection policies are rare in California and most of these Latino migrants are allowed to have a normal life without any conscious effort to arrest them and detain them for deportation. The main process that is used is the concept of “undesirable” persons, which occurs when a person commits a negative act and needs to be documented under criminal law. This leads to the possibility of deportation Arizona on the other hand, is viewed as a porous side of the US border where people from Mexico enter the United States[EFE14]. This is a situation whereby Latino migrants are seen as a large number of people in the state who are stuck there to make a living. However, unlike a nation like Italy which is a reception point of many migrants entering the European Union, Arizona cannot pave the way for most of these Latino migrants to move into other parts of the United States. This is because there are many issues of primary importance like security that must be handled. This is due to the fact that these Latino migrants are not documented. As such, they are prone to committing crime and negativity in the state. Latino migrants are therefore added into a broad class of migrants who enter the state illegally due to proximity factors. The influx of migrants from Latin America into Mexico implies that other illegal immigrants might not want to enter Arizona because there are too many Latino migrants. Therefore, the authorities of Arizona view Latino migrants as a class of people who directly need to be detected and dealt with in the quest to prevent the influx of these migrants who enter the state because of the geographical factors. Latino migrants are viewed as a negative impact on the state’s economy and their presence in Arizona causes the citizens of the state to get a less-than-ideal life and this has been the theme of political debates during election times[EFE14]. Therefore, Latino immigrants have been at the center-stage of political battles and most people see them as a group of undesirable elements of the society. Evidence shows that from the mid-1900s, Latino migrants in Arizona were treated harshly by the authorities and this has caused a tradition of targeting and harassing such members of the society by various constituents of the state of Arizona[Esc14]. Therefore, in contrasting the traditions of defining Latino migrants, it can be said that California tends to see Latino migrants as members of the immigrant population who are helping to develop the state. On the other hand, Arizona views its Latino migrants as a burden on the economy and the need to control their relocation into the state has become the theme of most political conflicts and contests. This shows that California’s citizens have a nonchalant attitude towards Latino migrants whilst Arizona polity presents the Latino migrant as a risk to the entire state and its citizens. Immigration Law System California is a state that has a tradition of accommodating foreigners and other migrants including Latino migrants. Therefore, California’s immigration system is a blanket system that is viewed as one that allows all foreigners to be classified in one big constituent. They are allowed to carry out their activities and find jobs and processes that allows them to go about their normal life and processes. Latino migrants are therefore a part of this broad class of people who are handled with a set of general rules and regulations that are applied to them as a part of a broad class of people. The immigration law system in Arizona on the other hand is one that is influenced and by one broad issue and one broad challenge – the issue of Latino migrants who enter the state due to geographical factors and circumstances. Therefore, the immigration law of Arizona is one that addresses one central issue – the issue of migrants who cross the Arizona desert and enter the United States with so much ease. Therefore, this broad class of issues is seen as a fundamental matter that must be tackled by the authorities. Hence, Latino migrants are identified as an illegal group of people who ought to be given the right kind of attention and the right kind of process. Arizona had a public outcry and a campaign that was ran between 2005 and 2010 that indicated that illegal immigrants are causing a major strain on the state’s budget and this gave citizens of the state the feeling that illegal immigrants were undesirable and hence, they had to be dealt with[Oll11]. This position implied that all the members of the state sought to gather and support the idea of a state free of illegal migrants and hence, there was a general consensus towards the process of identifying and deporting such persons by the state’s authorities. This gave the impetus for the state-level expansion of power to cover this end. In juxtaposing the two systems, it can be said that California traditionally accommodates migrants and people from different parts of the world with ease. This is not the case with Arizona who have seen Latino migrants as a threat to its economy and social structures. California has a diverse system and culture whilst Arizona seem to be working hard to keep its demographics with fewer Mexicans and Latin Americans. Federal Law Versus State Law California’s immigration law is based on the traditional federal law system of the country. The federal law states that all aliens over the age of 14 who stay in the United States for over 30 days will have to register with the federal government and keep their documents at all times with them[Mag131]. In cases where an immigrant fails to do this or possess the right documents, that individual could be charged with a federal misdemeanor crime which must be handled by the federal authorities. Therefore, California leaves all issues related to undocumented migrants to the federal authorities. These authorities will have to handle all the matters. This implies that California’s history and tradition is still based on the federal procedures of the US constitution. In response, the Californian state ensures that its law enforcement authorities and agencies carry out their activities in such a way that they respect the federal law and do not depart from it. On the other hand, Arizona moved to qualify the traditional position by tightening its processes and systems related to illegal migrants crossing over from Mexico. Arizona moved to create the Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act, which started as Arizona Senate Bill 1070. The Law moved to make it a state-level offence to move around without possessing the rightful documents. Since the country is one that has sought to target migrants crossing from Mexico, Arizona has a state power that allows its police and law enforcement authorities to demand appropriate documents on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Therefore, in cases where there was sufficient evidence that a given person does not possess the appropriate document, that individual could be apprehended by the state law enforcement authorities and processed for onward action to be taken against such a person. This shows that Arizona has qualified the existing federal system as a means of enforcing the law against illegal immigrants in a much more enhanced manner. It is therefore clear that Arizona has localized its legal systems in order to deal with matters according to the specific requirements and dynamics of the state, as opposed to the processes and procedures used by the federal authorities. The creation of a state-level law prevents the federal law system from being applied to Latino migrants. This means that Arizona’s law enforcement authorities who deal with immigration matters will naturally tend to build a culture of dealing with illegal immigration removal that is distinct from the rest of the United States. This approach and procedure has led to a framework within which the Latino migrants get a completely different treatment that is distinct from other peoples and other parts fo the United States. Public Opinion and Law Enforcement Evidence exists that indicates that public opinion in California is more tolerant of Latino migrants. This is because most of California’s citizens see migration as a positive thing, rather than a destructive matter that deserves a strict reaction. A new act, Immigration Reform and Control Act was proposed to the people of California, but less than half voted for it to be enforced[Hay13]. This implies that the people of California are somewhat prone to focusing on the economic and social interests of the state and as such, if the people willing to do some jobs that are not desired are Latino, they ought to be allowed to have their own way. Further studies show that California views its Latino population as a group of hardworking people who are ready to sacrifice and work to contribute to the development of the state[Fox12]. This implies that the state welcomes them and most media reports show that the Latino migrants are working hard, contributing to the economy and not demanding anything. Due to such reports, the state of California views its Latino segment in a positive light and most members of the state have some sympathy for these groups of migrants. Latinos on the other hand, are not treated so favorably in the state of Arizona. In contrast, they are seen as the main cause of economic woes in the state and a pressure on the state’s resources and budget[Mag131]. This laid the foundation for debates on the political level to be geared towards the creation of the SB1070 which sought to create tougher measures for dealing with illegal immigrants, particularly Latino migrants. The obvious excuse given by most of the supporters of the SB 1070 was to prevent people from crossing into America from Mexico. And the opinion is that 58% of American adults support the Arizona state empowerment laws[Pew12]. This is because they traditionally see it as a means of preserving American sovereignty and prevent the influx of Latino migrants who are seen as a threat to the United States’ cultural and social systems which is somewhat unique and distinct from what the Latinos of Mexico are viewed to bring to the country if they are allowed into the country. On the other hand, Hispanic-Americans did not support the law and as many as 75% disapproved of Arizona’s laws[Pew12]. These processes and systems influence the way authorities view these migrants and it creates pressures on them to carry out their tasks in a way and manner that will make them arrest more Latinos and send them for processing for onward deportation and other actions. Trends in Dealing with Latino Migrants Generally, evidence shows that the number of illegal migrant deportation has increased by 400% as compared to levels in the 1990s[Koh11]. However, California’s immigration law is said to be one that slows down the deportation of immigrants including Latino immigrants because illegal immigrants are turned over the federal authorities and most of this culminates from the screening of fingerprints of potential migrants under the US Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s Secure Communities program[Fox12]. A total of 97% of the over 400,000 migrants deported in the past years are of Latino origins and most of them were deported from Arizona[Gam12]. Most of the respondents indicate that the process of deporting people in Arizona is one that purposefully targets persons of Latino origins and extracts. This is because it causes the legal system to promote the identification of persons of Latino origins under these new laws in order to deal with the migrants and limit them. This shows that Latinos are systematically segregated from the rest of the population in the state. This indicates that they are being deliberately targeted and treated differently from other members of the community. Although the probabilities justify this trend and process, there is a general likelihood of harassment of Latinos in the state. On the other hand, a systematic study indicates that Hispanic Americans are treated harshly in the state of California. This is because they are given more checks and other kinds of scrutiny in cases where persons of other races will be left alone[LoC11]. This is mainly attributed to institutional challenges rather than a set of new laws and regulations that empowers authorities to act selectively. Additionally, evidence shows that female farm-workers of California experience a lot of sexual harassments which is peculiar to the state in several ways. Evidence shows that as many as 28% of women of Mexican origins who are illegal immigrants tend to go through various forms of sexual harassments in the hands of private individual co-workers and farm owners[Wau10]. On the other hand, there have been numerous studies that have shown that prior to the passing of SB1070, there was a general tradition in the state law enforcement system of Arizona in which Latinos were targeted ahead of persons of other ethnic groups[Ame14]. Therefore, some writers argue that the SB1070 literally legitimized the selective targeting, profiling and harassment of Latino migrants in the state of Arizona by the police[Sab14]. Statistics shows that the number of cases of abuse amongst these Latino migrants, particularly those who appealed against their deportation and detention rose by 64% in 2012 as compared to cases in 2010[Sab14]. This implies there is a direct correlation between cases and situations whereby the law was applied and put in place to ensure that the illegal migrants were removed from the state of Arizona. This suggests that there was a direct correlation between the harassment and the SB1070 because many writers have proven that it gave credence and legitimacy to the fact that most of the atrocities and harsh treatments meted out to such persons was somewhat justified by the need to improve the arrest and detention system in correspondence to the demands of the new law. The enactment of SB1070 came with numerous selected cases of violence and harsh treatments by certain jurisdictions of police and other law enforcement authorities. This obviously did not come up in the state of California as there was no clear change in the law which gave credence to any groups of people in the state. The Maricopa County of Arizona for instance, was singled out by many media outlets for being extremely brutal with its illegal migrants, most of who were of Latino origins. Maricopa County’s sheriff, Joe Arpaio was identified to be the head of one of the most notorious and the most brutal jurisdictions that harassed and degraded Latino migrants after the passing of the SB1070. Illegal immigrants were virtually convicted under the state law, handcuffed and made to live like criminals under the worst conditions. They were all transported and moved by being handcuffed together as one class of people who are all seen to be negative and degenerated[Coh12] In an investigation conducted by the Federal authorities, the following extract from paragraph 4 showed a lot of things relating to the misconducts that were generally justified by the passing of the new law: The Defendants' violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States are the product of a culture of disregard in MCSO for Latinos that starts at the top and pervades the organization. MCSO jail employees frequently refer to Latinos as "wetbacks," "Mexican bitches," and "stupid Mexicans." MCSO supervisors involved in immigration enforcement have expressed anti-Latino bias, in one instance widely distributing an email that included a photograph of a Chihuahua dog dressed in swimming gear with the caption "A Rare Photo of a Mexican Navy Seal." MCSO and Arpaio's words and actions set the tone and create a culture of bias that contributes to unlawful actions. This shows that there was institutionalized racism and disregard for the rights of Latino migrants. However, the passing of the SB1070 provided a framework through which these acts could be carried out with impunity. Clearly, the authorities and the law-enforcement leaders like Sheriff Arpaio was designed to formalize and integrate important elements and aspects of the culture of impunity and the culture of gross disrespect for Latino migrants in this part of the world. It is no coincidence that Sheriff Arpaio was one of the toughest advocates for the SB1070 in the state of Arizona. This means that the suspected illegal immigrants were treated unconstitutionally in the custody of the police and authorities of Arizona. And this also points to the fact that the SB1070 was used as a system through which illegal and inappropriate actions by the authorities in Arizona was institutionalized, streamlined and justified. In contrast with this, the Californian state had no major reports against its law enforcement authorities save for a few cases of sexual harassment by farm workers, supervisors and owners[Rod13]. Most other cases relating to migrant deportation and the arrest and detention of illegal Latino migrants was done through the federal authorities who handled these arrests and the processing of such persons and individuals for further action. This was often done within the framework of existing federal and constitutional rights and obligations. This seems to explain why there are fewer reported cases of abuse by these federal authorities in the state of California. Critical Analysis The study identifies that the Arizona state laws are such that they target persons of Latin American and Mexican origins in order to prevent them from entering and integrating into the US national system. This is obviously not the case in California where there is a general trend towards the creation of a harmonic and diverse society which makes use of Latino migrants who are considered to be hard-working. On the other hand, the political structures and popular thought of the people of Arizona indicates that they view Latino migrants as people who rely on the resources of the state to the detriment of the citizens of the state of Arizona. Hence, there is a general hostility that exists in the polity of Arizona. Arizona’s hostility to Latino migrants is strongly connected to the geographical circumstances that allow migrants to walk over the border into the Arizona. Thus, there is a general trend towards the detection and processing of these illegal migrants from the state of Arizona. This was institutionalized by the passing of the SB1070 which effectively legalized and legitimized the application of various levels of force to these migrants in the arrest, detention and deportation of such persons. On the other hand, California has always been home to Asian and other migrants who complement Latino migrants. This process has caused California to create a general framework and system for detecting and dealing with Latinos in a broad framework. The immigration law system in Arizona is mainly state-based whilst the system in California is linked to federal rules. Arizona’s laws are tightened versions of the US federal laws and systems. However, California sticks to the traditional system of following federal procedures in the arrest and detention of these migrants. This therefore affects the clamping down and focus on Latino migrants in California. Public opinion shows that most Americans see Arizona’s system as a means of preventing a Mexican or Latin American invasion of the United States. On the other hand, California’s public opinion on Latinos is that they help by providing cheap labor and this helps the US in social and economic matters. Therefore, the statistics of the two states indicate that California’s detention and deportation of Latino migrants is far less than Arizona. Arizona remains one of the highest states of deportation and most of these deportees are of Mexican and Latin American origins. Conclusion The trends of the findings indicates that Arizona, which is one of the leading states that have enacted laws that give the state the power to detain and deport illegal immigrants has been induced by public opinion. Their ability to change the law and override the federal limitations is fundamentally because the citizens of the states pushed for such a bill. And this allowed the state to enact laws to help deal with a situation that was negative and seen by most citizens as detrimental. Such a position was not taken by the citizens of California. This is fundamentally because the citizens of the state of California did not take a tough stand in dealing with its illegal immigrant population (most of who are of Latino origins). This confirms the first hypothesis which suggests that the sentiments of the people of a given state plays a role in getting the state to change its laws to suit this obvious divergence in the federal constitution. Therefore, it can be said that popular public opinion plays a role in the divestment of the federal law on immigration and this causes states to exceed the traditional limits of their power to detain and deport illegal immigrants. Evidence shows that there is a very low number of brutalities against illegal immigrants in the state of California. Since the state of California has followed the normal trend of giving illegal immigrants a more liberal treatment, it is logical to say that the absence of the divestment of powers by states to deport citizens plays an obvious and direct role in reducing the harassment of Latino migrants. This is because a lot of harassments and violations were reported in the state of Arizona and this shows a strong correlation of violence and abuses that relates to the divestment of state law and exceeding the traditional scope of the states and their laws. This shows that the second hypothesis is also valid to a large extent. This is because it is evident that states that exceed their powers in the constitution relating to the arrest, detention and deportation of illegal immigrants have fewer cases of abuses. On the other hand, states that go beyond the rights permitted by the US constitution tend to have more deportation-related abuses that are perpetrated by law enforcement authorities in the states. Therefore, it is conclusive that non-constitutional acts of states that allow them to deport leads to an obvious increase in the numbers of cases of harassments and abuses. The main limit of this assertion is that the study does not test other related variables like the structures of the police systems in the two states and the inherent elements of state law aside deportation and migrant laws that supports the levels of harassments and human rights abuses. Works Cited Wil10: , (Wilson 67; Johnson 198; Mauk and Oakland 67), Seg13: , (Segura and Zavella 3; Garcia 94), Cam111: , (Campbell 1; Magana and Lee, Latino Politics and Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 103; Rothe and Kauzlarich 98), Rom13: , (Romero and Romero Williams 230; Motomura 117; Ferro 76), Ske03: , (Skerry, Splitting the Difference on Illegal Immigration 42), Gal13: , (Gallagher and Lippard 75; Shally-Jansen 1037; O'Leary 32), Civ14: , (Civil Rights para 3), Civ14: , (Civil Rights para 1), Ada14: , (Adams and Eva 593; Spielberger 229), Cre13: , (Creswell 79; Belk 199), Piq13: , (Piquero and Weisburd 125; Rashed-Ali and Roff 290), Ske95: , (Skerry, Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority 2), Ske00: , (Skerry, Counting on the Census?: Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics 93), Etz03: , (Etzioni 23), Par88: , (Parsons 115), Skr02: , (Skrentny 92), Ale00: , (Alex-Assensoh and Hanks 48), Kel99: , (Keller and Melnick 302), Fau09: , (Faulkner and Shell 175), Etz03: , (Etzioni 19), Mot10: , (Motomura 22), Esc14: , (Escheverria 12), Nev04: , (Nevaer 51), Les13: , (Leshy 108), Maa13: , (Maas 51), Mil73: , (Mills 388), Ame14: , (American Immigration Council para 3), Pub13: , (Public Policy Institute of California para 9), EFE14: , (EFE para 4), EFE14: , (EFE), Esc14: , (Escheverria 19), Oll11: , (Ollivierre 2010), Mag131: , (Magana and Erik, Latino Politics and Arizona's Immigration Law SB 1070 (Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy) 41), Hay13: , (Haynes para 1), Fox12: , (Fox News Latino para 7), Mag131: , (Magana and Erik, Latino Politics and Arizona's Immigration Law SB 1070 (Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy) 37), Pew12: , (Pew Research Hispanic para 3), Koh11: , (Kohli, Markowitz and Chavez 1), Fox12: , (Fox News Latino para 5), Gam12: , (Gamboaa para 16), LoC11: , (Lo and Cheng 151), Wau10: , (Waugh 229), Ame14: , (American Immigration Council; Pew Research Hispanic), Sab14: , (Sabo, Shaw and Ingram 67), Sab14: , (Sabo, Shaw and Ingram 68), Coh12: , (Cohen para 4), Rod13: , (Rodriguez and Diana Para 6), Read More