The Arizona legislature has recently enacted the nation's most controversial state immigration law. Its aim, according to supporters, is to identify and deport all undocumented immigrants. The law, which is set to take effect in August, makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and gives the police broad powers to detain anyone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. It runs against a movement of converting major metropolitan cities into "safe haven" communities, where state and local officials refuse to provide any assistance to federal immigration law enforcement.
Arizona officials, however, were under increasing pressure to enact this legislation after the killing, a few weeks ago, of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler of illegal immigrants. It was the latest in a series of such crimes. This incident was specifically mentioned in a ceremony where Gov. Jan Brewer urged the federal government to send National Guard troops to the Arizona-Mexico border.
However, the list of people that have come out against this new law continues to grow daily. President Obama criticized the Arizona legislation even before it had become law stating that, if enacted, it would, "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." Mexico's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Officials in Los Angeles have voted to bar all official trips to Arizona and will not renew contracts with firms based in the state. The list of organizations boycotting Arizona grows by the day. This could result in a significant economic impact for the state in lost revenue.
In prior decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal government may not commandeer state law enforcement officials for federal work. The new law, however, compels state law enforcement officials to assist federal immigration agents. It states that, "No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." To many local law enforcement officials, they feel that they are now working for the federal government. Civil rights advocates across the country fear that the law will lead to civil rights violations. In an attempt to appease these concerns, some of the language in the original bill was modified. For example, a simple lawful "contact" was the minimum threshold necessary for law enforcement officials to commence an inquiry. The law now requires a lawful "stop, detention or arrest." This change, however, has failed to satisfy critics. The police are only required to have a "reasonable suspicion" that those they are detaining are undocumented immigrants. "Reasonable suspicion" is a lower legal burden than the "probable cause" standard typically used by police.
Civil rights advocates are also concerned that the Arizona law will lead to racial profiling. While changes were, again, made to the text of the law to amend this problem, critics remained unimpressed. The original language stated that, "A law enforcement official or agency of this state a county, city, town or other political division of this state may not solely (emphasis added) consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States
Arizona Constitution." By removing; word "solely" lawmakers hoped they would address this concern. They failed.
Immigration policy is a poignant issue, not only in the United States, but also in other industrialized nations. Recently, the issue erupted as a firestorm during the Brit-campaign for prime minister between Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labor Party, Conservative David Cameron (Newly elected Prime Minister) and, Nick Clegg (New Deputy Prime Minister) of the Liberal-Democrats. Each candidate posed different ways of stemming the high levels of immigration, which they all agreed was unsustainable. Yet, there were drastic differences on how to accomplish this reform. To illustrate, just a decade ago, only 3 percent of the town of Boston, England's residents were foreign-born. Today, immigrants make up over 25 percent of the town's population. While immigration has reshaped the United Kingdom for centuries, many in Boston and other small towns in Britain say they like the kingdom's immigrant-driven cosmopolitan but say the recent influx has come too fast and has been poorly managed. Unlike in the United States, the U.K. is host to immigrants who are often in the country legally. They have come from poorer eastern European countries, such as Poland and Romania, who have joined the European Union in the recent past.
Back in the United States, there are similar cries for immigration reform. Much like in the United Kingdom, all sides agree that the system is in desperate need of change. As always, the devil is in the detail. Some propose rounding-up all undocumented immigrants and deporting them. Yet these same individuals cannot say how they would identify and deport the estimated 15 million undocumented immigrants who are thought to be already living in the United States without making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many of these undocumented immigrants have immediate relatives who are U .S. citizens, further complicating matters. On the other side of the coin, you have those who propose to give all illegal immigrants amnesty and a direct path towards citizenship. It seems that this solution would reward an illegal act, while at the same time creating unfairness for legal immigrants who have followed guidelines.
It remains to be seen what lawmakers in Arizona will ultimately do and what, if any, will be the economic and social impact of the "boycott Arizona" bandwagon. We must not forget that anything that hurts the Arizona economy will also hurt the documented immigrant population already living in the state. What Arizona demonstrates is the great need for immigration reform. The solution is not likely to be found in the position of the various extremist sides of this issue. The solution will be found only when more sensible minds come together and seek effective compromise. The question is who will show the necessary leadership to move immigration reform forward. President Obama has spent a lot of political capital passing health care legislation earlier this year. It is not at all clear whether he has sufficient political capital left to compel Congress to do anything before the upcoming midterm elections in November. Members of Congress are too busy trying to get re-elected and it is not clear whether they would want to touch this heated issue with a ten-foot pole before January 2011. However, if the federal government continues to fail to address this issue, do not be surprised if other border states such as New Mexico or Texas decide to follow Arizona and take this matter into their own hands. Now is the time for real leadership in Washington D.C. Remember that having an efficient immigration system is in the national interest.
