What is Arizona AZ Senate Bill (SB) 1070 really: how did immigration laws and Latino values moved in to spotlight

State of Arizona
State of Arizona

Introduction

Recently, there is a huge national controversy about this new Arizona law, usually known as "SB 1070" (Arizona Senate Bill 1070), which modifies the immigration enforcements of Arizona law. People are protesting everywhere, even in San Francisco, California. Rev. Al Sharpton claims he will lead a group to Arizona and do a civil disobedience with various followers. So what exactly is so controversial about this bill?

To understand the bill, you must first read it (PDF link to old bill, see comments for link to the revised version). So please do that first. Don't trust any one who want to tell you about the bill, but have not read it.

Okay? Let us begin...

Section A: nothing controversial

Section A: NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

This basically says: nobody may choose to do LESS than what Federal immigration law requires.

Section B: Controversial? Maybe not.

SECTION B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

NOTE: April 30, 2010 revision changed this section slightly.The subscript words were REMOVED, and BOLD words added.

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien whoand is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

What this actually says: if any law enforcement official, have "reasonable suspicion" to believe that a suspect may be an illegal alien, the official will try to verify that person's immigration status with "reasonable attempt".

So what is "reasonable suspicion"? Quoted from Wikipedia:

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch.

In other words, the officer must have REASON, based on specific and articulable facts and inferences, to conclude that the suspect may be an illegal alien, and must be able to document the reason, in order to make "lawful contact", i.e. stop the suspect for questioning. Else, the stop would be ruled illegal, the contact illegal, and any sort of data gathered, also illegal, and not admissible in court.

Thus, any sort of fear that cops can just randomly round up Latino-looking people in the streets and run ID's on all of them, is simply unfounded. Any decent lawyer would be able to convince a judge to throw out the entire case if that happens.

The modifications made even LESS likely the law can be abused, by removing "lawful contact", and substituting "lawful stop, detention or arrest".

Section C & D: nothing controversial

SECTION C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

SECTION D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

Translation: illegal aliens, upon serving their sentence, are remanded to Federal custody (probably to be deported), even if the cops have to go outside their own jurisdiction.

Section E: Controversial? Hmmm...

SECTION E.  A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

This sounds controversial, until you read closer: "has committed public offense that makes the offender removable from the US".

So what is "public offense"? A public offense is basically a fine-only infraction. How many of those would make the person removable from United States? Not that many, actually.

Thus, it is nowhere as controversial as it sounds.


The rest are not controversial, really

SECTION F: Requires full immigration status data sharing among state agencies regarding benefits, licensing, residency, and so on.

SECTION G: Regular citizens can sue agencies and local governments that do NOT fully enforce Federal immigration laws. Should the agency/government loses, they have to pay attorney fees (normal), and pay a penalty.

SECTION H: The Penalty in Section G goes into a special state fund for immigration enforcement.

SECTION I: The officers, if acting within bounds of duty, are covered by the agency in question if they were involved in the lawsuit as per section G, unless they acted in "bad faith".

SECTION J: No civil rights of (legal) US residents may be violated to enforce these laws.

And a few other provisions...

Sec. 3.  Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes got the following additions:

A: Adds "trespassing" to the list of offenses that an illegal alien would face

B: Only a Federal officer who has access to immigration data, or an officer in contact of Federal agency who has access to immigration data, can determine who's "legal resident" or not.

C: Any illegal aliens are NOT eligible for early release or reduction of sentence; must serve all of it

D: Illegal aliens caught must also pay jail costs AND $500 (or more) penalty

E: The penalty goes into the special fund (mentioned earlier) for enforcement

F: Does NOT apply to legal immigrants

G: Defines penalties for stuff above

Another section toughens penalty for human smuggling (i.e. smuggle people across the border, usually in vehicles)

Another section clarifies the law that makes it ILLEGAL to hire or even pick up illegal day laborers.

Another section clarifies the law that makes it illegal to conceal an illegal alien to avoid arrest, and allows impound of vehicle

Another section clarifies the law that makes it illegal to hire illegal aliens, and defines penalties, appeal process, and so on.

The REAL PROBLEM with this law

This Arizona law has problems, but not for the reasons you may believe.

While the law is often seen as "anti-Latino", most of the provisions simply strengthen existing laws prohibiting businesses from hiring illegal immigrants to work. The only thing really controversial is the expansion of "reasonable suspicion" to include immigration status. However, most of the provisions *do* seem specifically targeted at the way Latino illegal day laborers try to find work or get into Arizona. Is it racial profiling? I honestly don't know.

So what is "racial profiling", which seem to be most of the objections?

Racial Profiling, as defined by wikipedia, is "the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner."

For example, rousing all the Latinos in the area for lineup so a victim can point out the offender. THAT is racial profiling. Or stopping a large van carrying a lot of Latinos on an AZ freeway just because it *is* carrying a lot of Latinos. THAT is also racial profiling. But does the new Arizona law allow that? No! It specifically targets ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR (hiring illegal workers, etc.) The only thing approaching controversy is the specific provision that allows LEOs, upon establishing 'reasonable suspicion', to contact, stop, and question suspicious individuals to establish their immigration status.

Folks, profiling is a real way to catch criminals. For the longest time, NBC had a TV series called "The Profiler". Even now, the TV series Criminal Minds is based on the FBI Behavior Science Unit, and they do PROFILING! It is when profiling is ABUSED, especially when it involved RACE (or ethnicity) characteristics, that it becomes bad. That does NOT mean the entire "offender profiling" is necessarily bad, or that racial profiling is bad by default! It is just that it can be abused, that made it controversial!

Furthermore, this is a "chicken and the egg: which is first" type question. Is the law really targeting Latinos who usually exhibit criminal behavior, or targeting criminal behavior exhibited usually by Latinos? Apparently one is legal, and the other is racial profiling, but how *do* you tell the two apart? Or do you just throw up your hands and call both "racial profiling"?

The REAL problem is the 'slippery slope' argument. Once this starts, what is next? And how do you prevent abuse?

What is really needed with this law is an automatic expiration date, upon which a NEW vote is required.

I am a minority, and I speak fluent Spanish (but I am NOT Latino). Many of my friends are Latinos, so I am ambivalent on this issue. However, I urge people to actually READ the actual laws on this issue, instead of rely on sound bytes given by news reporters and commentators.

(revised 28-APR-2010 3PM)

Also read my other hub: what is racial profiling, and how it is related to SB1070, and why court challenges to SB1070 are doomed.

More by this Author


Comments 37 comments

aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 6 years ago from Malaga, Spain

Makes sense, why the fuss?

Thanks for the information.

John


American Romance profile image

American Romance 6 years ago from America

Your assesment is correct, This law simply put only enforces what we already have on the books, thanks


Erick 6 years ago

"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may NOT SOLELY consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

[note the words in all caps above]

Really? Allowing for racial profiling, so long as it's not the *only* factor, is not controversial? Interesting...


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

The new law does NOT allow for race to enter into the picture. Simply BEING Latino does NOT provide "reasonable suspicion", as you've already quoted.

The charges of racial profiling mainly comes from the way day laborers get work, and MOST day laborers are Latino. But that's more of a chicken / egg argument. While it's true that MOST of people who WILL be affected by the law ARE Latino, is that prediction by itself sufficient to declare the whole law as "racial profiling"? I don't know.


G.L.A. profile image

G.L.A. 6 years ago from Arizona

Interesting hub.. good info. It's NOT a question of racial profiling, it is a question of citizenship profiling. I think we need to fully enforce existing federal immigration laws, or dump the existing federal immigration laws.. We've been riding the fence way too long on this issue. Irregardless of racial history, you are either a citizen, or you are not. If you are not, you are a law-breaker. If you are a law-breaker, you need to be 'punished' according to the law... just the same as every other person, citizen or not.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@GLA -- the problem is there are also legal RESIDENTS (i.e. green card folks), that are NOT citizen, but can stay. And there is no law in the US that requires one to carry ID, that I can recall offhand, but I haven't been to all states.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

kschang

There are several real problems with this law that you failed to consider in your hub. First, while you gave a very accurate definition of "reasonable suspicion" the translation in law enforcement has never been accurately followed. The act of being illegal is what it is an illegal act, therefore a person speaking a language other than English could by reasonable assumption be deemed suspicious. While the law will not create a true climate of apartheid for citizens of south American descent, it can reasonable create a climate of constant suspicion. While immigration laws should be enforced and illegal immigrants deported, the question is whether this should be done at the expense of foreign born US citizens.

The greater problem may actually be "Section G" of the bill. The potential cost to tax payers coupled with the added burden on the judicial system that can potentially be created by this clause is scary. How does one determine whether or not a government/law enforcement agency is adequately enforcing immigration laws? I can not think of any local, state, or federal law or initiative that actually gives private citizens the right to sue the government based on an undefined reason.

If Arizona really wanted to resolve the illegal immigrant situation in their state they would have come down a lot harder on the businesses that employ them. Instead they implement a policy that slaps them on the wrist for their first offense, suspends their business license for a couple of days on the second offense, and then gets tough on the third offense. To make it even worse illegals employed by you before the bill is enacted all count as a single offense. In other words if you employee 200 illegal immigrants (knowing that it is against the law) and are found out, you get punishment of having only one.

Cut off the ability for illegals to earn a living in this country and you take away the incentive for them come, without infringing on the rights of true citizens.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@SBOF: while the law's IMPLEMENTATION may be flawed, is it fair to judge the law even BEFORE it CAN be implemented, just BECAUSE it *could* be abused?

Same with the lawsuit angle. It is fair to judge the provision BECAUSE it *can* be abused?

Not really arguing either way, but just questioning all the HATRED at this particular law without even giving it a chance to work.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

hubbers

If the government would enforce the 1986 laws there would be no need for the states to act. Our politicians will make statements that it is impossible to extricate 13 million illegals. Well let's start by

1.Denying non citizens government entitlements

2. Babies born on us soil by non citizens will not be made automatic citizens

3. Start enforcing the law

a No catch and release

b. Send them back to border once, if caught second time 1 year internment camp along border

c. Illegal act hard labor prison minimum 15 years

USSR, China, North Korea and other socialist countries take care of problems quickly.

Wake up America to what equal justice should be all about.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

kschang

As a democracy we as a people should denounce anything that restricts the rights and liberty of another citizen. In this case American citizens who must prove they are American on demand. There is no argument that illegals should be expelled but you are asking actual citizens to give up their rights in order to accomplish that goal.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@SOBF -- So what you are saying is that all people present in the US (whether legal or not) should be PRESUMED to be legally present, and enjoy all legal protection thereof?

I don't recall such a right having ever existed. But then, I'm not a law student.


grofit44 profile image

grofit44 6 years ago from Superior, WI

This is just one more way the Fed's are trying to stick their nose into the business of individual states. Just as Obama was voted in and pushed his agenda through. That does not mean that this government entity should be shouted down by setting their own agenda. These people were voted into office by the people of this state. Just as our president was on a national scale. If the people of this state want this law to change they will vote in new leadership in the next election.

As the law stands even after this was put through. Says that we do not have to show ID unless we have committed a crime or there is reason to believe a person has. I do not see this changing. Because if the tide does change, and people do start getting pulled over, stopped on the street and searched for no reason. People in support of open carry laws in Arizona will be the next victims of this type of abuse. I do not see this happening the way it has been painted in the press.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

kschang

No what I am saying is that no legal person in this country should be forced to proved they are citizens because one state has a problem with illegals.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 6 years ago from Malaga, Spain

"Cut off the ability for illegals to earn a living in this country and you take away the incentive for them come, without infringing on the rights of true citizens."

So who does the work that they do, which nobody else wants to do?

John


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

Amendment 14 of the Constitution

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

aguasilver

I guess one cannot have their cake and eat it too.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@SOBF -- There's nothing in Amendment 14 that says anything about not having to prove they are a citizen/legal resident once they become one. Asking one to "prove" one's immigration status is hardly an "abridgement" of one's rights, as there's no such right as "once I became citizen/legal resident I never have to prove it again."

If you're inside a club, you may be asked to show club ID (unless there are bouncers outside guarding the entrances, and it's impossible to get in without getting through them). So why not check IDs even within a country's borders? What right did it violate except a little dignity?


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@SOBF -- even better example... my local transit system. It uses "honor system" on the light rail lines. You can get on, and nobody checks, but you better have a pass or purchased a ticket. There are random checks by inspectors. If you are caught without one, expect to pay a big fine.

What you're saying is just because you bought a pass, nobody can ask you to show it. Somehow, it is your right NOT to show such a pass. It makes no sense.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

kschang

You are comparing being stopped on the street and being asked to prove your citizenship to club ID's and transit ticket inspectors, they are not the same. Fist off everyone in the club may be subject to prove their right to be there, everyone on the train may be subject to prove their right to be there, everyone in Arizona will not be required to prove their right to be there, and that is the problem.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@SOBF -- WHAT is the difference between the two, except scope? One is within a train or a club, and the other is in a state. And NOT all people in a country club may be subjected to ID check, and not everyone in a train is checked. Just as not all people in a state can be checked.

And you still have not answered the first question: is there such a right that you do NOT have to prove your citizenship to cops? All your arguments seem to center on this issue, and thus far the closest you got was 14th Amendment, which, by my amateur reading, does not really support your case.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

Had an interesting conversation with my friend today. He is similar ethnic makeup as me, and it took me several minutes to get a "reason" out of him. His objection mainly to the AZ law is actually quite simple: 'bad' racial profiling *can* be abused, so ALL racial profiling should be banned. When I pointed out that's not quite logical, he basically stated that handicapping the police is better than handicapping the citizens, generally speaking. So it is more of a philosophical attitude, rather than logic, at least for him. How about you?


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

kschang

I suggest you review the definition of liberty, then apply it to:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

If I am stopped by a police officer I am not asked to prove my citizenship. Never have been asked to prove my citizenship and unless Arizona's way of thinking spreads, never will be asked to prove my citizenship. So, the question is raised; what is reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen? No ID and a accent? This concept infringes upon the liberty of those American citizens who speak with a accent, based solely on their accent.

This is my thinking as to why the law is unconstitutional. Our constitution was meant to be a living document that can be amended based on the environment but it is not to be ignored for the sake of a states desire to address their immigration problems.


TMcp 6 years ago

"For any LAWFUL contact made by a law enforcement offical"

This means there has to be PROBABLE CAUSE for this contact,

(which is the same as it always has been). Someone being hispanic is not probable cause. If someone is let's say speeding and is pulled over, at that time an officer can, if he has reasonable suspicion (that this person may be an illegal alien), inquire about immigration status. Being an ILLEGAL alien (key word ILLEGAL)IS illegal and it is the officers duty if he suspects to find out.


dugger62 profile image

dugger62 6 years ago from Colorado

With all due respect- in my OPINION every thing that bill says should be done to ObamaNation -> first.

Do we all remember what happened to the Indians? Let me say it like this- any land of this earth does not belong to anyone except to our creator. Mankind marked their spot & their greed. How is it any different then another person wanting the claimed proud American dream that everyone else has -> but yet Obama has his @ss siting in our country illegal as all hell playing president? The way ObamaNation has ran it : is it truly going to be worth being here when he is finished ? What is the dream for anyone losing their home? Being Homeless and the only thing that retard can talk about is Health care- I say send ObamaNation back and leave everyone else alone.


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 6 years ago from USA

Thank you for an unbiased and well written article which clearly describes Senate Bill 1070’s legal agenda. It is not racial profiling; it simply enforces the immigration laws that our federal government refuses to enforce. Amnesty didn’t work 20+ years ago instead, it sent a wrong message to the world. Today, we are dealing with the fallout from that message through increasing numbers of illegal's. Keep in mind, Latino’s are not the only people sneaking across the borders from Mexico. However, they are the majority.

I personally think Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona did the right thing! She is protecting the people of her state against invaders from their southern border. These illegal’s like to claim they are not law breakers yet they sneak across the borders, or pay coyotes thousands of dollars to smuggle them into the United States. This, by every definition is ILLEGAL ENTRY into our country and that is BREAKING our laws! Why should they be pandered to by our government and rewarded with Amnesty while legal citizens are prosecuted everyday for breaking laws? That to me is the worst kind of discrimination.

In the past three weeks those illegal’s crossing in Arizona have killed a rancher and yesterday shot a sheriffs officer. One illegal (40 year old man) was sentenced recently for raping young girls. I have a friend who lives in Texas and she said, “The illegal’s there tell people to learn their language because they are going to take this country back without firing a shot.

What these people need to do is stay in their own country and fight for a better life for themselves and future generations. That’s what our forefathers did for us!

I also commend Jon Ewall for his comments on this article; they are right on target!

Here’s some statics, please take time to read them:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/issues.html

http://www.personalliberty.com/government/how-much...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/753891/il...


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@SOBF -- so it *does* come down to more of a philosophical point. You consider "not having to prove legal resident status" one of the IMPLIED rights, and I don't. I am glad we got that cleared up. Guess the courts will decide on that.

@Dugger62 -- I was almost tempted to deny your comment as it really added no substance to our discussion. It is just a rant against the Obama administration. If you think the Fed's inaction "caused" AZ to pass such a law, just say so. Bringing up the native Americans is rather pointless.

@Nancy's Niche -- I would not be so quick to draw too much conclusion about AZ's law, or the "intent" of Latinos. One of the "latent fears" was a Latino uprising. It was so ridiculous, it was included in a satire game called "Bad Day in LA" (go ahead, look it up).

As more of the babyboomers and echo-boomers retire, only influx of immigrants (and improving technology & productivity) can keep up this country's GDP. In 20-30 years we may be INVITING immigrants in instead of keeping them out with a fence.


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 6 years ago from USA

kschang: My point is this---if you want to come to America, do it legally! Illegal enty is the contention here.

A recent poll showed that the majority of legal Latino’s [62% latest count] are against illegal immigration and amnesty.

As far as a Latino uprising, that would only support the rationale behind SB 1070. Here’s a question many have pondered; since they have deliberately violated federal immigration laws, will they continue to violate our laws?

Remember, when one is in a country illegally, the ONLY right they have is to be treated humanely until deported.

All countries have immigration laws for the protection of their legal citizens and to create a healthy balance of diversity within their country.


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

@Nancy's Niche--Don't disagree with that. I naturalized decades ago. Like CA's governor, I'm not native-born American.

I *think* what really got people riled up is how *do* you tell the illegals from the legals. Like SOBF here, somehow people think that there's some sort of a right all people should be presumed legal unless proven otherwise, and somehow being presumed legal means no questions whether one's legal or not. It's a strange assumption, at least to me.


electricsky profile image

electricsky 6 years ago from North Georgia

Thanks for the information.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

A MESSAGE FROM THE AZ GOVERNOR

Fighting Arizona’s drug trafficking and border violence problem

Just a few days ago, a major drug ring was broken up and 39 Mexican cartel operatives suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted. This is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Arizona’s drug trafficking and border violence problem.

Narcotics prosecutions in Arizona have risen 202% in 16 months, however, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearing House, there will be 1,080 prosecutions refused this year in Tucson alone. This represents over one-third of all unprosecuted cases in the Southwest. Until January of 2009, any smugglers carrying under the threshold of 500 pounds were often not prosecuted - a fact that smugglers knew all too well!

When she served as Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano sent countless requests to Washington to take action in securing our border. Now, as Secretary of Homeland Security, she claims that the border is “as secure now as it has ever been.” That’s the problem. Our border wasn’t secure when she was governor and it’s not secure now. We’re not buying that “the system worked.” By turning a blind eye, Secretary Napolitano is betraying us in her home state. Napolitano personifies what happens when people go to Washington. Sometimes, they forget who they represent.

As the rhetoric on illegal immigration continues to grow out of control, it’s more important than ever to share the facts on Arizona’s new law. The reality is that Arizona’s new law mirrors federal law, which the federal government is not enforcing. George Will put it in perspective; the federal government's refusal to control the border is what has caused this problem in the first place.

As I stated when I signed the law, racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona. The bottom line is that the federal government must secure our borders and I think Arizona finally got their attention. It looks like we're going to have a battle on our hands, but I'll keep telling the truth and doing what is right for Arizona and our country.

OBAMA AND CONGRESS LISTEN UP YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. THE PEOPLE WANT THE TRUTH AND THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


cosette 6 years ago

i have noticed a couple of things recently, since this became law. one, those people who used to deliver all those flyers on our doors all day now do it under cover of darkness. seriously, i am up at 4:00 in the morning often and hear something at my front door so i peek out and it's someone quickly and almost furtively slipping adverts on the doorknob or in the door and off they go.

another thing i noticed is very few 'allegedly' illegals around, and when you run into someone who looks like they might be, they sort of hunch over and look all defensive and quickly leave the area. is this what this law s going to do? make us start racially profiling our neighbors? are the immigrant police going to start calling 9-1-1 now when they see someone who looks brown and walking down the street? sometimes i feel like buying a giant sombrero and walking into Costco just to see what people would do ;)


kschang profile image

kschang 6 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA Author

They would ask if you are giving away free tacos and refried beans at Costco. :D

Seriously, it is a general atmosphere of fear. The media is NOT portraying the law accurately. They were giving info that were out of date, using soundbytes from politicians and 'activists', instead of legal scholars and such who actually analyze the law and give comments. They want controversy for ratings, not provide useful info. And that in turn added fear to the illegal immigrants who's trying to make a living.

I don't like the way certain groups are trying to take advantage of the issue, but I guess that's the way life goes.


SLav 6 years ago

@Nancy Nich: Your forefathers were immigrants too, escaping a repressed Europe. Read your history before you make assumptions.


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 6 years ago from US

What about Arabs in Airports? Ring a bell? Our forefathers went by rules and none of them ever walked right in and made themselves at home. One of the first things they did was learn English. Ever heard of Ellis Island? Know anything about that?


NoAmnesty 6 years ago

The Federal Government needs to enforce the immigration laws on the books until such time as they are changed via the proper methods (not an executive amnesty bypassing Congress and the American voters). If they fail to do so, then I have no problem with Arizona enforcing them within their state. Reality is that the US cannot continue to take in all of the poor from other countries that want to come here. When our ancestors immigrated there was a need for additional populace, plenty of room and plenty of resources to go around. That is no longer the case. If we are to continue to provide a reasonable standard of living to those already here legally, then some people who are here illegally or who want to come here will need to be denied. In my book, the needs of American citizens trump those of illegal aliens every time. If that makes me selfish or racist or whatever, so be it. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.


emg 4 years ago

i dont like this law


idkk? 4 years ago

man hey say thisz is a free country but does it look like it?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working