Senate Bill 1070: What's Right, What's Wrong, and What's Irrelevant

Not everyone against illegal immigration is angry or white.

Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 (AZ SB 1070 and HB 2162) stirred much controversy in the past, and still today causing further division among Americans, legal residents, and illegal residents.  Many individuals argue that it is a simple legislation that makes the federal government enforce what they have legislated.  Others argue the possibility of legalizing racial profiling and possible human rights violations due to the interpretation of the bill's text.  Thus, the arguments on both side are heated and violent, but one must refer to facts before drawing conclusions.

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act requires illegal aliens (those who do not have the legal right according to law to work in the United States) who reside for longer than 30 days to carry their registration documents at all times.  It also allows the law enforcement to verify the immigration status of suspected persons, and imposed sanctions or fines on individuals who knowingly aid, hire, or transport illegal immigrants.  SB 1070 is in cooperation of federal immigration law, outside of the liberal media’s imagery.  This was further revised to restrict law enforcement officials to check immigration status at a “lawful stop, detention, and arrest”[1]. 

There is a fine line between legal and illegal immigration.

Displaying much resistance and violence, the critics argue that interpretation of AZ SB 1070 would lead to racial profiling.  Racial profiling is utilizing a suspect's race or ethnicity as a factor in enforcing the law, and is in conflict with Fourth Amendment rights of protection from unlawful searches and seizures.  Both Republicans and Democrats do not explicitly approve of racial profiling, but it is an evil that resides in society (regardless of opinion).  Despite many social justice and civil rights groups' ideals, it is wishful thinking to eliminate racial profiling and promote civil rights equally.  Racial profiling is also facing criticism because of the debate on whether or not race or ethnicity is probable cause to search, seize, or detain individuals.  However, many Supreme Court decisions (such as United States v. Bringnoni-Ponce) conceded to the fact that racial profiling is a statistical inevitability, even though Supreme Court decisions prohibited suspecting individuals based on race or ethnicity alone[2].  Defeated, civil rights activists argue that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.  However, Plyer v. Doe (another Supreme Court case) argues otherwise.  The court held that since illegal immigrants made the choice of unlawfully entering the United States, they also made the choice to not be entitled to equal protection under the law[3].  Thus, they do not have to be subjected to protection from self-incrimination.  

Those who disapprove of SB 1070 (such as Mexican President Felipe Calderon) drone about the “violation of human rights” through “criminalization of migration”.  First, illegal immigration is already a criminal act, and thus already criminalized, considering that federal law made it illegal.  Second, tapping into an extremely vague area of law and ethics is extremely unspecific and requires indication as to what aspect of human rights is violated, which he has failed to provide.  But is there a human rights violation, and if so, where?

If there was a human rights violation, it would probably be held in either Article 13(2) (in which people are allowed to leave any country, even their own) or 13(3) (these rights are unrestricted unless provided by law or in the interests of national security, public health, rights and freedoms of nationals, and other rights) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[4].  In these two sections is where the conflict lies.  However, it is definitely not in the favor of illegal immigrants, as federal law and interests of national security already places restrictions on such groups, and the UDHR only provides the protections for those who are legally present.

Way to kill your argument, dude.

On top of this criticism, known Mexican supremacist groups (including National Council of La Raza and the Brown Berets) self-imposed their victimization by stating that they are the victims of White Imperialism.  Under the guise of social justice and civil rights for Hispanics, they claim that the white men are the real trespassers.  To tell you the truth, I have seen nothing more biased and inflammatory that what they have been preaching.  Their concepts of fairness and freedom are skewed by racial pride and hostile prejudice.  Their efforts in pulling the “minority card” and the “victim card” and calling supporters of the bill “Nazis” and “hate-mongers” only further displays their bigoted agenda and unveils their ulterior, hate-filled motives.  On top of this biased agenda, NCLR has promoted Hispanics to not cooperate with the law on the guise of "knowing their rights".  However, ill-cooperation only promotes legitimacy towards immigration enforcement and Republicans.

In short, Senate Bill 1070, though controversial, is considered extremely lenient.  However, the courts will have to decide the fate of this bill.  So far, the United States Department of Justice has sued Arizona and has placed an injunction on several significant provisions of the Bill, including those requiring the carry and lawful search.  However, employer sanctions and hiring regulations are legal and within the law.  As the fight continues among the courts, there is wonder as to the fate of the bill in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Sources:

State of Arizona.  Senate.  Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010.  49^th Legislature, 2^nd Session.  Ariz. SB 1070. 

Plyer v. Doe. 457 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 15 June 1982. Print.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 30 June 1975. Print.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 01 July 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.

---

[1] State of Arizona.  Senate.  Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010.  49^th Legislature, 2^nd Session.  Ariz. SB 1070. 

[2] United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 30 June 1975. Print.

[3] Plyer v. Doe. 457 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 15 June 1982. Print.

[4] "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 01 July 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.