Arizona’s highly controversial Senate Bill 1070 is having polarizing effects everywhere— even in the Graphic newsroom. Weigh in after reading to cast your opinion on who has it right! Let the games begin.
On the offense: Joseph Van Meter
Action must be taken regarding illegal immigration but the now-infamous Arizona immigration law is not the answer. Though our great nation was once founded by immigrants and for immigrants we now understand that we must control our borders and immigration in order to preserve national economic stability. In each of the border states illegal immigration is a problem and the federal government has not taken adequate action to remedy it. In California alone federal security has drastically increased along the border over the past decade through the commitment of extra manpower and the construction of a partial fence. This escalated security has pushed illegal traffic east toward other border states such as Arizona which boasts a 70 percent increase in undocumented residents. Though these states once held warm relationships with their Hispanic populations they now face a new threat to their borders.
Race can be a very difficult topic to discuss but it sits at the heart of SB 1070 the controversial Arizona legislation that was signed into law this summer. Part of the most egregious provisions of the law requires officers during a “lawful stop detention or arrest to inquire about a person’s legal status if there is reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally. The Arizona law paints a monochromatic target on one racial group in particular. After all it’s no secret that the vast majority of illegal immigrants from the Mexican border are of Latino origin. Apart from their race language and pursuit of the affluence available in the United States illegal immigrants have little else in common. Therefore “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status could mean little more than being a part of nearly two million Latino Americans legally living in Arizona. As the son of a first-generation immigrant from South America I can empathize with the outpouring of rage across the nation at this law’s proposal and passage. The thought of my own mother a 25-year legal resident and citizen of the United States being at risk of detainment and questioning regarding her hard-earned citizenship if she were to vacation in the Southwest is more than upsetting. I too could be at jeopardy of arrest if I were to forget my “papers” when passing through Arizona though I am a natural born citizen. Sorry officer but I do not typically keep my birth certificate with me. Again race can be a difficult subject to approach without ruffling feathers but examine the other side of the law. Under the law very few if any whites will ever have their legal status questioned in Arizona and it is quite easy to support a law that targets a specific group. Imagine if the law instead targeted African Americans Asian Americans or Caucasians. Anyone who can identify as such ought to sympathize with the anger displayed by the Latino community. I do. For those who prefer to think in terms of tax money and the budget SB 1070 has more up its sleeve to invite frustration. If a person under suspicion of being in the country illegally is without proper identification upon being detained they will be placed under arrest. This means that if the law were fully enforced officials would be required to place those under mere suspicion in jail where they would be fed and safeguarded by government employees under a government-funded roof. As we all know government funds come from the taxpayers’ pockets. In theory a U.S. citizen living in Arizona could be arrested jailed and later released— all at the taxpayers’ expense. Let’s ignore for a moment that the law mandates racial profiling. The question then becomes: Is SB 1070 even a wise use of taxpayer dollars? It is not making this new law an affront to fiscal conservatives and social liberals alike a rare common ground.
For the Defense: Harrison Yager
What’s the big deal when it comes to Arizona’s new immigration law? There’s been so much criticism lately over what seems to me a very basic issue. Illegal immigration is obviously illegal so why does a huge ethical uproar ensue when an explicit state policy is added to existing federal policy? The practical complications for law enforcement trying to deport illegal immigrants without having immediate access to their papers are substantial and time-consuming. If citizens feel inconvenienced why don’t people direct their frustration toward those who are forcing the United States to even have such policies: illegal immigrants.
I believe this issue like most other social and political controversies is generated by a lack of information. California has the highest population of illegal immigrants which in 1996 was estimated to be 2 million or about 40 percent of the national illegal population according to the Department of Homeland Security. Estimates in the original report projected the total number of illegal immigrants residing in the United States would increase by some 275000 each year. If the population increased following those projections the current number would be more than 7 million illegal immigrants. That’s almost twice the size of Ireland. Of course this assumes that no preventive measures have been taken since that time. It’s already a complicated process to track immigrants who are actively avoiding detection.
Racial profiling however is a very legitimate concern for the many people who have entered the United States legally. And luckily the court amended the law to exclude the possibility of racial profiling making this concern a non-issue. We have resolved this concern. So it seems to me the criticism is not based merely on policy but on concept. Nitpicking at the legislative wording and dissecting policies are really counterproductive to the fight on illegal immigration. Rather than looking at the big picture narrow-minded social activists are unable to see the issue completely by holding on to obsessive concerns involving civil liberties. The public catches word of a new violation of civil liberty and warmongering is afoot.
Having lived two years abroad in Switzerland and China I’m no stranger to the troubles of being a “foreigner auslander waiguoren.” I didn’t know the language I looked different from the locals and people reacted positively and negatively to me being foreign— not necessarily ethnically different but simply from another country. In both countries I was advised to carry foreign paperwork with me as a precaution should someone require it. It was impressed upon me that it was the right of the country hosting me to demand to see that I was living there legally— just as if I were a guest in someone else’s house. For example the church service I attended in Shanghai was one only open to foreign passport holders and it was perfectly within the realm of possibility that someone may demand to see my passport.
Yet another point that doesn’t make sense to me is the negativity toward anti-illegal-immigration proponents. What so people who sneak into our country illegally should be sympathized with while the public demonizes those who wish to stop it? I understand that no one wants to be that bad guy that closes doors to outsiders. Americans embrace the concept of being multi-cultural and ethnically-diverse: it’s a land made by immigrants. And yet we must value those who adhere to our country’s immigration policy and enter legally and by granting leniency to current illegal immigrants we undermine that.
Immigration reform lies in America’s immediate legislative future. This is by no means a done deal. But it has inevitably diverted the public’s attention to the important issue at hand and I see it as a step in the right direction.