Arizona Senate Bill 1070

Arizona Senate Bill 1070
Dennis Schroader
ENG 122
Andrea Pfaff
June 7, 2010

Regulating immigration and naturalization is one of the chief responsibilities of the federal government as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Chief among the many reasons for controlling who and what comes into the country is our national security, which is threatened by illegal immigration. This has been a hot issue in American politics since at least 1986 when President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration and Reform Control Act.

According to a 2004 report by the Congressional Research Service, the estimated number of illegal aliens residing in the United States increased by more than seven million between 1988 and 2002 (Unauthorized Aliens in the United States: Estimates Since 1986). Varying government and media sources estimate the number of illegal aliens currently residing in the United States anywhere between thirteen million and twenty-three million, with an estimated less than one million coming from nations other than Mexico.

Federal efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration – from amnesty bills and lackluster crack downs on employers to electronic “virtual fences” and an insulting few 1,200 military troops sent to patrol - have amounted to little more than political showmanship. Arizona’s new immigration law (Senate Bill 1070) picks up where the federal government has dropped the ball. 

Let us begin with a brief history of federal efforts, beginning with the last major amnesty bill, Immigration and Reform Control Act (1986). This was a blanket amnesty for over 2.7 million illegal aliens. The argument of the day was that there were just too many illegal aliens to track down and deport for the federal government to handle, so the answer was to enforce the border, crack down on employers and grant amnesty to those who had broken our laws and allow them to live as lawful residents. The idea was that we would stop the influx through the southern border by tougher enforcement, and perhaps that would have worked, if it had ever been implemented.

As it is, it was not, and people continued to pour through our open border by the tens of thousands per month. So great was the draw of America that in 1994, Congress passed another amnesty bill, known as Section 245(i), which was a temporary rolling amnesty affecting an estimated 578,000 illegal immigrants (Congressional Research Service, 2002). This was followed quickly by an extension in 1997. This passed nearly simultaneously with the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (1997), yet another amnesty for close to one millions illegals from Central America, and the Haitian Refugee immigration Fairness Act (1998), which granted legal status to 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti. Two short years later, a bill known as Late Amnesty (2000) passed granting amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, for an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens, along with the LIFE Act (2000) which reinstated the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.

This brings us up to date on the various amnesty bills enacted in the last twenty-four years. At this point, the American public has grown weary of the constant “second chances”.  A Quinnipiac poll (May 19-24, 2010) showed that 59% of registered voters consider illegal immigration a very serious problem and 66% want stricter enforcement of the laws currently on the books. A CBS News poll (April 28 – May 2, 2010) likewise showed the common ground among Americans of differing viewpoints, showing that 65% overall consider it a very serious problem, including 75% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats and 67% of Independents. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll (May 21-23, 2010) revealed 60% support for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and deporting those found here versus 38% who support legalization/amnesty, and 88% favor increased border patrol and federal law enforcement along Mexican border.

As a result of the growing problem of illegal immigration and the federal government’s ineffective response, the State of Arizona enacted its own law that closely mirrors existing federal codes (Archibold, R., The New York Times, 2010, April 23). This action touched off a media firestorm, which set the political left against the center and right. Even as the Obama Administration criticized Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, CBS News showed in another poll (May 20-24, 2010) that 52% of Americans think the Arizona  law is “about right”, including 46% of Democrats and 45% of Independents versus just 40% and 45%, respectively, who believe it goes too far.

The primary argument against the law is that it is seen as “racist”, particularly by Hispanics. According to the New York Times article:

“Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions” (2010, April 23).

Furthermore, critics of the law, which allows police officers, in the course of other legal contact, to ask for proof of legal residency, provided they have reason to suspect otherwise, have attempted to link this provision to the behavior of Nazi’s in World War II. In that, these critics commit the “strawman fallacy” of argument, which is an attempt to defeat the real target by making them seem like a different, more easily assailed enemy, and usually in an unfair and unjust manner (Waller, 2008, Kindle Location 515). The problem with these arguments is that the Arizona law, just like the federal law it mimics, specifically prohibits racial profiling and any other kind of discriminatory act on the part of law enforcement.

The simple conclusion to all of this is that, while it is the role of the United States government to enforce the border and immigration policy, it falls to the border states, so egregiously affected by the onslaught of illegal immigration, to pick up where the feds have failed. 

References
CBS News. (2010). CBS News Opinion Poll, May 20-24, 2010. Retrieved on June 4, 2010 from http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. (2010). CNN/Opinion Research Corp Opinion Poll, May 21-23, 2010. Retrieved on June 4 2010 from http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Congressional Research Service. (2002). Immigration: Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status Under Section 245(i) (Order Code RL31373). Washington D.C: Government Printing Office.

Congressional Research Service. (2004). Unauthorized Aliens in the United States: Estimates Since 1986 (Order Code RS21938). Washington D.C: Government Printing Office.

Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty of 1998.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Retrieved on 4 June 2010 from the U.S. Department of Justice website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/byagency/doj1255a.php

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, P.L. 105-100, title II. Retrieved on 4 June 2010 from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration website: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-15244.html

Quinnipiac University. (2010). Quinnipiac Opinion Poll, May 19-24, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Waller, B. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, Second Edition. New York: Pearson Longman