Supporting our Law Enforcement and Safe Environment Act (introduced as Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and thus often referred to simply as Arizona SBÃ, 1070 ) is the 2010 legislative law in the US state of Arizona that at the time of the 2010 legislation is the largest and most stringent anti-illegal immigration action passed in Arizona. It has received national and international attention and has sparked controversy.
US federal law requires all foreigners over the age of 14 who live in the United States for more than 30 days to register with the US government. The US Federal law also requires foreigners over the age of 18 to have proper identification at all times; violation of this requirement is a crime of federal crime. Arizona's actions also make it a state crime crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying necessary documents, it is necessary that state law enforcement officers seek to determine the status of individual immigration during "legitimate cessation, detention or arrest", when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is a dark immigrant. The law prohibits state or local officials or institutions from restricting the application of federal immigration laws, and punishes those who protect, hire and send unregistered foreigners. Paragraphs of intent in the law say it embodies the doctrine of "attrition through enforcement".
Critics of the law say it encourages racial profile, while supporters say the law bans the use of race as the only basis for investigating immigration status. The law was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162 within a week of its signing with the aim of addressing some of these issues. There are protests against the law in more than 70 cities in the US, including boycotts and a boycott call against Arizona.
The law was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. It is scheduled to take effect on July 29, 2010, ninety days after the end of the legislative session. Lawsuits on constitutionality and compliance with civil rights laws are filed, including one by the US Department of Justice, which also calls for orders against law enforcement. The day before the law came into force, a federal judge issued an initial court order blocking the most controversial legal provisions. In June 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Arizona v. United States , enforcing provisions requiring immigration status checks while law enforcement ceases but violates three other provisions as violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Video Arizona SB 1070
Terms
US federal law requires foreigners aged 14 or over who are in the country for more than 30 days to register with the US government and have their registration documents at all times. The law makes it a crime of a criminal state for illegal aliens to be in Arizona without carrying the necessary documents and requiring police to make efforts, when practicable during legitimate "stop, arrest or arrest", to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. Any person arrested can not be released without confirmation of a person's legal immigration status by the federal government in accordance with § 1373 (c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. The first offense carries a fine of up to $ 100, plus court fees, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent violations can result in up to 30 days in jail (SBÃ, 1070 requires a minimum fine of $ 500 for the first infringement, and for a second fine of $ 1,000 and a maximum imprisonment of 6 months). A person "is not considered an illegal immigrant present in the United States" if he presents one of the following four identification forms: a valid Arizona driver's license; a valid nonoperative Arizona identification license; a legitimate tribal registration card or other tribal identification; or legitimate federal, state or local identification issued by the government, if the issuer requires evidence of the existence of law in the United States as a condition of publishing.
The law also prohibits states, localities and local officials limiting or restricting "federal immigration law enforcement to less than fully authorized by federal law" and stipulates that any Arizona law resident may sue the agency or official concerned to enforce such full enforcement that. If the person bringing the lawsuit applies, the person may be entitled to reasonable reimbursement of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, to hire or be hired from vehicles that "block or impede normal traffic movement." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to compulsory immobilization or impoundment. In addition, for someone who violates the criminal law, it is an additional violation to carry illegal aliens "in continuation" of illegal illegal presence in the US, to "hide, harbor or protect" illegal aliens, or to encourage or persuade illegal aliens to immigrate to the country, if the person "knows or carelessly ignores the fact" that aliens are in the US without authorization or immigration it would be illegal. Violation is a class 1 crime if less than ten illegal aliens are involved, and class 6 crimes if ten or more are involved. The perpetrator is liable to a fine of at least $ 1,000 for each illegal alien involved. Terms of transportation include exceptions for child protection service workers, and ambulance officers and emergency medical technicians.
Arizona HB 2162
On April 30, 2010, the Arizona legislature was ratified and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified a law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors will not investigate complaints based on race, color or nationality. origin." The new text also states that the police can only investigate incidents of immigration status to "legitimate cessation, detention or arrest", lower original fines from a minimum of $ 500 (?) Up to a maximum of $ 100, and change the limits of detention for the first time-offenders from 6 months to 20 days.
Maps Arizona SB 1070
Background and section
Arizona is the first state to enact far-reaching legislation. Before the law in Arizona, like law in most other countries, did not mandate that law enforcement personnel inquire about the immigration status of those they encounter. Many police departments do not want to ask immigrants to report crimes and cooperate in other investigations.
Arizona is estimated to have 460,000 illegal aliens in April 2010, a figure that has increased fivefold since 1990. As the country with the most illegal crossing on the Mexican-American border, remote and dangerous deserts are illegal entry points for thousands of illegal, Mexicans and Central Americans. In the late 1990s, Tucson Border Patrol Sector has been the site for most of the arrests by the US Border Patrol.
Are illegal aliens committing crimes in disproportionate amounts uncertain, with different authorities and academics claiming that the rate for this group is equal, greater, or less than the total population. There is also anxiety that the Mexican Drug War, which has caused thousands of deaths, will spill over into the US. Moreover, in the late 2000s (decade) Phoenix saw an average of one kidnapping per day, earning it the reputation of being the worst in America. city ​​in that regard.
Arizona has a history of passing illegal immigration restrictions, including legislation in 2007 which imposes severe sanctions against employers who employ illegal aliens. Size similar to SB 1070 was passed by the legislature in 2006 and 2008, only to be vetoed by Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano. He was later appointed as Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration and was replaced by the Secretary of State of the Republic of Arizona Jan Brewer. There is a similar history of referenda, such as Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) which seeks to limit the illegal use of foreign social services. The doctrine of attrition through enforcement is one of the think tank institutions such as the Center for Immigration Studies has supported for several years.
Impetus for SB 1070 is associated with a demographic shift that leads to a larger Hispanic population, increased drug-related violence and humans in Mexico and Arizona, and the country's struggling economy and economic anxiety during the late 2000s recession. The citizens of the country are also frustrated by the lack of federal progress on immigration, which they consider more disappointing given that Napolitano is in government.
The main sponsor, and the legislative power behind, the bill was State Senator Russell Pearce, who has long been one of the most outspoken opponents in Arizona's illegal aliens and who has managed to push some previous pieces of harsh legislation against those so-called "invaders in American sovereignty ". Much of the draft bill was carried out by Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School and a figure associated with the American Federation for Immigration Reform who has written immigration-related bills in many other parts of the country. Pearce and Kobach have worked together in past legislative efforts on immigration, and Pearce contacted Kobach when he was ready to pursue the idea of ​​a state enforcing federal immigration laws. Meeting of the American Exchange Legislative Council (ALEC) in Washington, D.C. in December 2009, produced a model draft law that embodied Pearce's ideas.
(One theory that explains the impetus behind the bill is that ALEC is largely funded by the contributions of its members and among them are some companies in the private prison industry, such as Correction Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation, and GEO Group, and that the company - these firms profit by a large increase in the number of illegal aliens sent to Pearce prison then denied that he made the bill for any reason other than stopping illegal immigration and denied that he submitted the idea to ALEC for any reason other than helping it pass in Arizona and, potentially, in other countries.)
The proposed bill reached the Arizona legislature in January 2010 and acquired 36 cosponsors. The Arizona State Senate approved an earlier version of the bill in February 2010. Saying, "Enough is enough," Pearce said figuratively that the new bill would remove handcuffs from law enforcement and put them on perpetrators of violence.
On March 27, 2010, 58-year-old Robert Krentz and his dog were shot and killed when Krentz did the fence work on his large ranch about 19 miles (31 km) from the Mexican border. This incident provides a real public face for fear of crimes related to immigration. The Arizona police could not name the suspect in the murder but tracked the footprints of the southern crime scene towards the border. The resulting speculation that the killer is an illegal alien increases the support among the public to measure. For a while there was talk of naming the law after Krentz. Some state legislators (both for and against the law) believe, however, that the impact of the Krentz killing has been exaggerated as a factor in passing bills.
The bill, with a number of changes made to it, was adopted by the Arizona Representative Council on 13 April with 35-21 party-line votes. The revised measure then passed the State Senate on April 19th with a 17-11 vote which also follows the party line, with all but one Republican vote for the bill, ten Democrat votes against the bill, and two Democrats not voting.
After the bill passes, the governor has five days to make a decision to sign, veto, or let him pass unsigned. The question then becomes whether Governor Brewer will sign the bill into law, as he remains silent on the measure while weighing the consequences. Immigration has not been the main focus of his political career to this point, though as a state secretary he has supported Arizona Proposition 200 (2004). As governor, he has made another impetus for Arizona Proposition 100 (2010), a one percent increase in state sales tax to prevent cuts in education, health and human services, and public safety, despite opposition from within his own party. The previous political steps, along with the strong Republican hard party that will come at the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election of another conservative adversary in favor of the bill, are all considered a major factor in its decision. During the development of the bill, his staff has crossed the line of language according to the State Senator Pearce, but he also said he was worried about some of his provisions. The Mexican Senate urged the governor to veto the size and the Mexican Embassy to the United States raised concerns about potential racial scoring possibilities. However, residents' message to Brewer, 3-1 supports the law. A Rasmussen Report poll taken between the House and the Senate vote showed widespread support for the bill among voters in the country, with 70% in favor and 23 per cent opposed. Of the same voters, 53 percent were at least somewhat concerned that actions taken because of actions in the bill would violate the civil rights of some American citizens. Brewer's staff said he was considering legal issues, their impact on the state business, and the feelings of citizens in making their decisions. They added that "he suffered for these things," and the governor also prayed for the matter. Brewer's political allies say his decision will cause his political problems no matter which direction he decides. Most observers expect that in the end, he will sign the bill, and on April 23 he did it.
During the signing period, there were over a thousand people in Arizona State Capitol supporting and opposing the bill, and some minor civil unrest occurred. Against concerns that the act would promote racial profiling, Brewer stated that such behavior would not be tolerated: "We must enforce the law equally, and without regard to color, accent or social status." He vowed to ensure that the police forces had proper training related to law and civil rights, and on the same day the signing issued an executive order requiring additional training for all officers on how to apply SB 1070 without engaging in racial profiling. In the end, he said, "We have to trust our law enforcement." (The training materials developed by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board were released in June 2010.)
Sponsor Pearce called the bill's signing "a good day for America." News about immigration laws and debates gained national attention, especially on cable news channels, where strongly-held topics are often given additional air time. Nevertheless, those who voted on the bill were then shocked by the reaction they received. Country Representative Michele Reagan reflected three months later: "Most of us who voted for the bill, myself included, did not expect or encourage public protests, the majority of us only chose it because we thought we could try to fix the problem. who imagines a boycott No one anticipates emotions, prayer is a precaution The attitude is: This is the law, let's start following them. "State Representative Kyrsten Cinema, the assistant minority leader of the House who seeks to stop the bill and oppose it also reflects: "I know it will be bad, but no one thinks it will be this big, no one."
Immigration issues have also been the center of attention in the Arizona Arizona Republican Senator's reelection campaign John McCain, who has been the last champion of federal immigration reform measures such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Also facing a major battle - against the more conservative JD Hayworth , which has made steps against illegal immigration as a central point of its candidacy - McCain supports SB 1070 just hours before talks at the State Senate. McCain later became a vocal legal advocate, saying that the state has been forced to take action because of the inability of the federal government to control the border.
In September 2014, US District Judge Susan Bolton ordered a major sponsorship of Arizona's 2010 immigration law to comply with a subpoena calling him to submit his email and documents about the conflicting law. The challengers of the bill want to determine from here whether there is a discriminatory intention in drafting legislation.
Reaction
Poll
Rasmussen poll The national report around the time of signing showed that 60 percent of Americans support and 31 percent oppose laws allowing local police to "stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect as illegal immigrants." The same poll also showed that 58 percent were at least somewhat concerned that "efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some US citizens." A national Gallup poll found that over three-quarters of Americans have heard about the law, and those who have, 51 percent support it against 39 percent opposed. Angus Reid Public Opinion polls show that 71 percent of Americans say they support the idea of ​​needing their own police to determine the status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" of illegal immigrant people, and arresting those people if they can not prove them legally in the United States. A New York Times/CBS News poll across the country found results similar to the others, with 51% of respondents saying that Arizona law is "right" in its approach to illegal immigration issues, 36% say too far, and 9 percent say it is not far enough. Another CBS News poll, conducted a month after the signing, showed 52% saw the law as true, 28 percent thought it was too far, and 17 percent thought it was not far enough. The majority of 57% argue that the federal government should be responsible for determining immigration law. A national Fox News poll found that 61% of respondents thought Arizona was right to take its own action rather than wait for federal action, and 64% thought the Obama administration should wait and see how the law works in practice rather than trying to stop it properly. far. Experts warn that in general, voting has difficulty reflecting complex immigration issues and laws.
Another Rasmussen poll, conducted across the country after several days of heavy news coverage of controversial law and its signing, found that most Arizonis still support it, by 64% to 30 per cent. Rasmussen also found that Brewer's approval ratings as a governor had risen, going from 40 percent of potential voters before signing to 56 percent after, and that his margin of the Democratic governor candidate, State Attorney General Terry Goddard (who opposed the law) had widened. A poll conducted by Arizona State University researchers found that 81 percent of Latin-registered voters in the state opposed SB 1070.
Public officials
United States
In the United States, supporters and opponents of the bill roughly follow the party line, with most Democrats opposing the bill and most Republican supporters back it.
The bill was criticized by President Barack Obama who called it "misguided" and said it would "undermine the basic notion of justice we value as Americans, and the trust between police and our community that is vital to keeping us safe." Obama later noted that the modification of HB 2162 has established that the law is not applied discriminatively, but the president says there is still a possibility that people suspected of illegal immigrants are "harassed and arrested". He repeatedly calls for federal immigration reform legislation to prevent such action among states and as the only long-term solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Governor Brewer and President Obama met at the White House in early June 2010 to discuss immigration and border security issues behind SBÃ, 1070; the meeting was called fun, but brought little change in the attitudes of the participants.
Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had a "deep concern" about the law and that it would divert the necessary enforcement resources from fighting rough criminals. (As governor, Napolitano consistently vetoed similar laws during his tenure.) US Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government was considering several options, including legal challenges that led to the possibility of civil rights violations. Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, presented the law in discussions with the Chinese delegation to illustrate the human rights fields that the United States needed to improve. This made McCain and fellow senator from Arizona Jon Kyl strongly objected to any possible comparison of the law against human rights abuses in China. US Democratic Senior Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have criticized the law, with Bloomberg stating that it sends the wrong message exactly to companies and international travelers.
In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, McCain drew that Napolitano had made a statement before actually reading the law. Holder also admits that he has not read the law. Recognition by two cabinet secretaries that they have not read SB 1070 becomes a perpetual criticism of reaction to the law. The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused the ruling party of being willing to "criticize the bill (and divide the country with the next rhetoric) without actually reading it." Governor Brewer's election campaign issued a video featuring hand puppets of frogs that sang "readings help you know what you are talking about" and encourage viewers to fully read the law. In reaction to that question, President Obama told a group of Republican senators that he had actually read the law.
Democrat Linda SÃÆ'¡nchez, US Representative of California's 39th congressional district, has claimed that white supremacist groups are partly to blame for the legal part, saying, "There is a concerted effort behind promoting such legislation on state-by-state "Representatives of Gary Miller, from California's 42nd congressional district, called his statement" an outrageous allegation [and] red herring. [He] tried to change the debate of what the law says. " The SÃÆ'¡nchez district is located in Los Angeles County and the Miller district is in the nearby Los Angeles County and Orange County.
The law has been popular among Republican base voters; However, some Republicans have opposed aspects of size, most of whom have represented the Hispanic countries. These include former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Florida House Representative and US Senate candidate Marco Rubio, and George W. Bush's former political strategy chief Karl Rove. Some analysts have argued that Republican support for legislation provides short-term political benefits by energizing on their bases and independence, but the long run brings the potential of alienating the growing Hispanic population of the party. This issue played a role in several major Republican contests during the 2010 congressional elections season.
An Arizona Democrat who defended some of the motivations behind the bill was Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, who said that his constituents were "sick and tired" from the federal government that failed to protect the borders, that the current situation is "totally unacceptable", and that the law the invite is "a clear call that the federal government needs to do a better job". However, he stopped supporting the law itself, saying that "doing nothing to secure our borders" and that "stands in direct conflict with our past and, as a result, threatens our future." His opposition to the law became one of the issues in the 2010 re-election campaign, in which he narrowly won over his Republican opponent, who supported him.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton submitted a dispute over SB1070 in a August 2010 report to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Office, for example to other countries on how cracked issues could be resolved under the rule of law. Governor Brewer demanded that references to the law be removed from the report, seeing his participation implies that the law was a violation of human rights and said that every idea to submit U.S. law to US review was "raging internationalism."
Mexico
Office of Mexican President Felipe CalderÃÆ'³n says that "the Mexican government condemns legal agreement [and] criminalization of migration." President CalderÃÆ'³n also marked the new law as a "human rights violation". CalderÃÆ'³n repeated his criticism during his next state visit to the White House.
The move was also strongly criticized by Mexico's health minister José ÃÆ'ngel CÃÆ'³rdova, former education minister Josefina VÃÆ'¡zquez Mota, and the Governor of Baja California Josà © Guadalupe Osuna MillÃÆ'¡n, with Osuna saying it "could disrupt the indispensable economy, politics and cultural exchanges from across the border region. "Mexico's Foreign Ministry issued travel advisors to its citizens visiting Arizona, saying" It should be assumed that every Mexican citizen can be harassed and questioned for no further reason at any time. "
In response to this comment, Chris Hawley from USA Today said that "Mexico has laws that are not different from Arizona", referring to a law that gives local police force the power to check documents of people suspected of being in the country illegally. Immigration and human rights activists have also noted that Mexican authorities are often involved in racial profiling, harassment, and searches of migrants from Central America.
The law defames the 28th annual Binary Border Governor Conference, scheduled to be held in Phoenix in September 2010 and will be hosted by Governor Brewer. The governors of six Mexican states belonging to the conference vowed to boycott him in protest against the law, saying SB 1070 was "based on ethnic and cultural prejudice against fundamental rights," and Brewer said in response that he canceled the meeting. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, the US border governor who opposed the law, supported the transfer of the conference to another country and continued it, and then held in Santa Fe, New Mexico without the presence of Brewer.
Arizona law enforcement
The Arizona law enforcement group has been divided on the bill, with police officers all over the state generally supporting police and police associations against it.
The Arizona Police Chief Association criticized the law, calling the bill "problematic" and arguing that it would negatively impact the ability of law-enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner. In addition, some officers have repeated earlier concerns that illegal immigrants may be afraid of the police and not contact them in emergency situations or in cases where they have valuable knowledge of crime. However, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which represents city police officers, has supported the law and lobbied aggressively for his travels. Officers who support the action say they have many indicators other than race that they can use to determine if a person may be illegal immigrants, such as a non-existent identification or conflicting statements made.
The move was praised by Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona - known for his crackdown on illegal immigration within his own jurisdiction - hoping the move would lead to federal action to close the border. Arpaio said, "I think they will be afraid that other countries will follow this new law that has now been passed."
Organizations and religious perspectives
Activists inside the church are present on both sides of the immigration debate, and both supporters and opponents of the law are calling for religious arguments for support.
State Senator Pearce, a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) who has a large population in Arizona, often said that his attempt to push this law was based on the 13 chapters of the Church's Faith, one of which instructed in complying with the law. This association caused a reaction to the LDS Church and threatened its evangelistic efforts among Hispanic populations in the area. The Church emphasizes that it does not take a position on law or immigration in general and that Pearce does not speak for it. It later supported the Utah Compact on immigration and in the following year, took an official position on the issue that opposed Pearce's approach to immigration, saying, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that state laws containing only enforcement provisions are likely failing high moral standards to treat each other as God's children.The Church supports the approach in which illegal immigrants are allowed to conform to the law and continue to work without this should lead to citizenship. "
The US Catholic Bishops Conference condemned the law, characterizing it as cruel and saying it "could lead to the question and the wrongful arrest of US citizens." The National Church Council also criticized the law, saying it was against centuries of biblical teachings on justice and togetherness.
Other Christian clergy members differ in legal terms. Bishop United Methodist Church, Minerva G. Carca of Arizona Desert Southwest Conference opposed him as "unwise, short-sighted and passionate" and led a prominent religious mission mission to Washington to lobby for comprehensive immigration reform. But others stress the biblical command to follow the law. Although there is a perception that most Christian groups are against the law, Mark Tooley of the Institute of Religion and Democracy says that immigration is a political issue that "Christians across the spectrum can disagree about" and that liberal churches are only more outspoken in this regard..
Concerns over potential civil rights violations
National Association of Selected and Elected Officers Latino said the law was "an unconstitutional and costly act that would violate the civil rights of all Arizonans." Mayor Chris Coleman of Saint Paul, Minnesota, marks it as "cruel" as do members of the Democratic Representative Council of Texas Garnet Coleman. Edwin Kneedler, US Deputy Attorney General, also criticized the law for potential violations of the civil liberties of Arizona citizens and legitimate permanent residents.
Proponents of the law have rejected such criticism, and argue that the law is plausible, limited, and carefully crafted. Stewart Baker, a former Homeland Security official in the George W. Bush administration, said: "The scope of this law and the text of the law is somewhat difficult to calculate.Not in law that requires cities to stop people without cause, race or ethnicity by itself. "
Member of the Republic with the Arizona Representative Council Steve Montenegro backed the law, saying that "the bill has nothing to do with race or profiling, it has to do with the law, we see a lot of crime here in Arizona because it is openly bordering on what we have." Montenegro legally immigrated to the US from El Salvador with his family when he was four, stated, "I say if you are here illegally, queuing up, coming the right way."
As one of the main drafters of the law, Kobach has stated that legal means have been written to make any form of racial profiling illegal. In particular, Kobach refers to a phrase in law that directly states that officers "should not only consider race, color, or national origin." Kobach also disagrees that the "reasonable suspicion" clause of the bill specifically allows for the creation of a racial profile, replying that the term "reasonable suspicion" has been used in other previous laws and therefore has a "legal precedent".
However, there is an ongoing argument in legal journal articles that racial profiles exist and threaten human security, in particular the security of Mexican people living in the United States. India Williams argues that Border Patrol is very likely to stop anyone if a suspect resembles a "Mexican appearance" and declares that the generalization of an irreversible physical feature threatens the culture and heritage of the ethnic group. Andrea Nill argues that only a small proportion of Mexicans and Latin are illegal immigrants, but there is discrimination and illogical discrimination from the Latin community by giving less respect, rights and freedom, while white Americans will never worry about being stopped by the police because of the color their skin.
Some Latino leaders compare the law with Apartheid in South Africa or Japanese detention in Japan during World War II. The legal aspect that officers can question the immigration status of those they suspect of being in the country is illegally characterized in some circles as "show your documents" or "your documents, please" provisions. It echoes a common allusion to Germans in World War II films. Such associations are explicitly made by Congressman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado and Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn also said that the legal requirements for carrying letters all the time reminded of anti-Jewish law in Nazi Germany before the war and feared that Arizona would head into a police state. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said, "I can not imagine the Arizons now returning to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques where people are required to turn each other off to authorities with all suspicions about documentation." The Anti-Defamation League called for an end to comparison with Nazi Germany, saying that no matter how unclean or unconstitutional the Arizona law might be, it was not compared to the role that Nazi identity cards played in what ultimately became European Jewish extermination.
In its final form, HB 2162 limits the use of race. It states: "A law enforcement official or body of this country or any other region, city, city or political part of this country shall not consider race, color or national origin in the application of the terms of this paragraph except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States or Arizona. "The US and Arizona Supreme Court have stated that race may be considered in enforcing immigration law. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , the US Supreme Court found: "The likelihood that everyone given Mexican descent is alien enough to make the Mexican appearance a relevant factor." The Arizona Supreme Court agreed that "immigration law enforcement often involves consideration of relevant ethnic factors." Both decisions say that race alone, however, is a base that is not enough to stop or capture.
Protest
Thousands of people protested in the state capital of Phoenix over the law around the time of its signing, and a pro-immigrant activist called the act "racist". Part of the modification of HB 2162 law, although intended to address some of the criticisms, did not change the minds of many of the opponents of the law.
Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in more than 70 US cities on May 1, 2010, a day traditionally used worldwide to assert workers' rights. A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Mahoney, drew between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters waving Mexican flags and shouting "SÃÆ' se puede". The city has become a national center of protest against Arizona law. About 25,000 people are in a protest in Dallas, and more than 5,000 are in Chicago and Milwaukee, while rallies in other cities generally attract about a thousand or so people. Illinois Congressman Luis Gutià ©  © rrez, is part of a group of 35 people who were arrested in front of the White House in a planned civil disobedience act that also urged President Obama to push for comprehensive immigration reform. There and in several other locations, demonstrators expressed frustration with what they saw as a lack of government action in immigration reforms, with signs holding messages like "Hi Obama! Do not deport my mother."
The protests both for and against the Act took place during Memorial Day Weekend in Phoenix and ordered thousands of people. Those who opposed it, mostly made up of Latinos, marched five miles to the State Capitol in hot weather, while those who supported him met at a stadium in an event organized by elements of the Tea Party movement.
Protests against the law extended to the world of art and sport as well. Colombian pop singer Shakira came to Phoenix and gave a joint press conference against the bill with Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. Linda Ronstadt, who is partly Mexican and raised in Arizona, also appeared in Phoenix and said, "Mexican-Americans will not take this as a lie." A May 16th concert in Mexico City's ZÃÆ'³calo, called Prepa The Youth For Dignity: We Are All Arizona, attracted about 85,000 people to listen to Molotov, Jaguares and Maldita Vecindad for seven hours in protest against the law.
The Premier League Baseball Association, whose members are a quarter born outside the United States, said that the law "could have a negative impact on hundreds of major league players," especially as many teams come to Arizona for spring training, and called for it to be "revoked or modified soon." A Premier League Baseball game at Wrigley Field, where the Arizona Diamondbacks visited the Chicago Cubs saw protesters protesting the law. The protesters focus on the Diamondbacks because the owner Ken Kendrick has been a prominent fundraiser in the Republic, but he is actually against the law. The Phoenix Suns of the National Basketball Association wore the "Los Suns" uniform normally used for the league's "Noche Latina" program for the May 5 playoffs (Cinco de Mayo) against the San Antonio Spurs to show their support for Arizona's Latino community and voiced disagreement over the law - invite immigration. The Suns political action, rare in American team sports, created a storm of fire and attracted opposition from many team fans; President Obama highlighted it, while conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh called the move "cowardly, pure and simple."
Boycott
The Arizona boycott was organized in response to SB 1070, with resolution by the city government being one of the first to materialize. The Government of San Francisco, the City Council of Los Angeles, and city officials in Oakland, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Denver and Seattle all take certain measures, usually by banning some of their employees from work-related travel to Arizona or by restricting business cities by a company headquartered in Arizona.
In an effort to push back the action of Los Angeles City Council, which is worth $ 56 million, Arizona Company Commissioner Gary Pierce sent a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, suggesting that he would be "happy to encourage the Arizona facility to renegotiate your power agreement so that Los Angeles no longer accepting any power from the Arizona-based generation. "Such a move is not feasible for proprietary reasons and governance, and Pierce later states that he does not make threats literally to cut power to the city.
US Congressman RaÃÆ'ºl Grijalva, from the 7th congressional district in Arizona, has been the first prominent official to call for an economic boycott of his country, by industries from manufacturing to tourism, in response to SB 1070. His calls are repeated by La OpiniÃÆ'³n , the largest Spanish-language newspaper in the country. Calls for various boycotts also spread through social media sites, and there were reports of individuals or groups changing their plans or activities in protest against the law. The prospects of adverse economic impacts left Arizonan business leaders and groups uneasy, and Phoenix officials estimated that the city could lose up to $ 90 million in hotel businesses and conventions over the next five years due to legal controversy. Phoenix Mayor Gordon urges people not to punish the whole country as a consequence.
Major law-abiding organizations, such as the La Raza National Council, refrain from initially supporting boycotts, knowing that such acts are difficult to implement successfully and even if carried out leads to widespread economic suffering, including among those they support. Arizona did have a past case of large-scale boycotts during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it lost many conventions and several hundred million dollars in revenues after the cancellation of Governor Evan Mecham from the state holiday of Martin Luther King, Jr. the initial referendum failed the next to restore it. La Raza then shifted its position on SB 1070 and became one of the leaders of the boycott attempt.
The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposes the law and the idea of ​​a boycott, saying that the latter would only hurt the small business and state economy, which has been severely damaged by the collapse of real estate prices and the recession of the late 2000s. Other state business groups are opposed to boycotts for the same reason. Religious groups opposing the law split up on whether the boycott was advised, with Bishop Carcaà  ¢ saying one "will only extend our recession by three to five years and hit those who are the poorest among us." Representative Grijalva said he wanted to keep a boycott limited to conferences and conventions and only for a limited time: "The idea is to send a message, not to grind the country's economy." Governor Brewer said he was disappointed and surprised by the proposed boycott - "How can punishing families and businesses, big and small, be a constructive solution?" - but said that the state will not retreat from the law. President Obama did not take a position on this issue, saying, "I am president of the United States, I do not support boycotts or support boycotts, that is something that can be taken by private citizens."
Sport-related boycott is also proposed. US Congressman from New York JosÃÆ'Ã… © Serrano asks Bud Selig baseball commissioner to move the 2011 Premier League Baseball Game from Chase Field in Phoenix. The Chicago White Sox manager, Ozzie Guillà © n, stated that he would boycott the game "as a Latin American" and some players indicated that they might as well. Selig refused to move the game and it happened as scheduled a year later, without any players or coaches staying far away. Two groups protesting outside the stadium drew little interest from fans who wanted to get into the game. The World Boxing Council, based in Mexico City, said it would not schedule a Mexican boxer to fight in the state.
Boycotts by musicians who say they will not perform in Arizona were co-founded by Marco Amador, Chicano activist and independent media advocate and Zack de la Rocha, lead singer Rage Against the Machine and son of Beto de la Rocha of the Chicano, Los Four , which says, "Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiles, but this law (SB 1070) brought it to new lows." Called Strike Sound, the signing artist with efforts includes Kanye West, Cypress Hill, Massive Attack, Conor Oberst, Sonic Youth, Joe Satriani, Rise Against, Tenacious D, The Coup, Gogol Bordello and Los Tigres del Norte. Several other Spanish-speaking artists did not join this effort but avoided playing in Arizona on their way; these include Pitbull, Wisin & amp; Yandel, and Conjunto Primavera. Boycott Voice Strikes fail to get support from many regional or stadium actions, and no country music action is signed. Elton John strongly opposed these efforts, telling a concert show in Tucson: "We are all very happy to play in Arizona I have read that some artists will not come here, they make love! Let's face it: I'm still playing in California, and as a gay man, I have no legal rights whatsoever, so what's with these people? "In November 2010, Pitbull has announced a change of heart, playing a show in Phoenix because most laws have been stopped by judicial acts. My Chemical Romance, a genuine Sound Strike participant, was supposed to come out and schedule a show in the state as well (however, the next day the show was canceled and the band apologized, explaining that it was a mistake with tour scheduling and should not have been booked in the first place because " affiliate band with The Sound Strike "). De la Rocha said Sound Strike will continue despite orders against most of the SB 1070 to fight Arizona's "racist and fear racist government" and until the Obama administration ceases to participate in federal measures such as the 287 (g) Safe Community program and Enforcement policy US Immigration and other Customs.
In reaction to a boycott talk, legislators advocate making a special effort to buy products and services from Arizona to show support for the law. These efforts, sometimes called "buycott", are disseminated by social media and radio talk as well as by elements of the Tea Party movement. Some legal advocates and law scholars also suggest that the Arizona city government boycott is an unconstitutional offense of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
By early May, the country had lost $ 6-10 million in business revenue, according to the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association. However, an increase in holiday travel and overall economic recovery is more than compensated for the loss of business travel; in July, the occupancy rate and overall hotel revenues rose from the same period of 2009. The president of the Great Phoenix Economic Council said, "Basically, the boycott has failed." A November 2010 study by the progressive Center for American Progress states that the boycott has so far weighed on the country's economy of $ 141 million in lost revenue, including $ 45 million in the lodging industry. However, an examination at the same time by the Associated Press found that although the boycott had been disturbing in some areas, it was nowhere near the effects that had originally been envisioned. Visitors to Grand Canyon National Park rose from the previous year, several well-known companies in Arizona are targeted to say they have not seen the impact of it, and actions by the city authorities of San Francisco and Los Angeles have resulted in some practical consequences. Sport-related boycott, such as the Fiesta Bowl, sponsoring Frito-Lay and distributor of Hensley & amp; Co., also has no effect. In September 2011 La Raza and two related groups canceled their boycott, saying it had succeeded in preventing some other countries from passing Law of 1070 and that continuing the boycott would only punish businesses and workers.
Effects
Arizona
Some Christian churches in Arizona with many immigrant congregations reported a 30 percent drop in their attendance rate. Schools, businesses, and health care facilities in certain areas also report considerable reductions in their numbers. That and the prevalence of page sales suggest illegal immigrants leaving Arizona, with some returning to Mexico and others moving to other US states. A November 2010 study by BBVA Bancomer based on the Current Population Survey data states that there are 100,000 Hispanics in Arizona than before the legal debates began; it is said that a poor Arizona economic climate may also contribute to the decline. The Mexican government reported that more than 23,000 residents returned to the country from Arizona between June and September 2010. A report by Seminario NiÃÆ' Â ± ez Migrante found that about 8,000 students enrolled in Sonora public schools in 2009-2011 with families citing American economies and SB 1070 as the main cause.
A few weeks after the signing of the bill saw a sharp increase in the number of Hispanics in the state registering their party affiliates as Democrats.
Some immigration experts say the law might make workers with H-1B visas vulnerable to public caught without the irreplaceable documents they are usually reluctant to carry with them everyday, and that as a result universities and technology companies in the state may find it difficult to recruit students and employees. Some college and university administrators shared this fear, and President Robert N. Shelton of the University of Arizona expressed concern about the withdrawal of honorary university rolls from the university in reaction to the bill.
Some women with questionable immigration status avoid domestic abuse hotline and shelter for fear of deportation. Some critics of SB 1070 fear that it will serve as a roadblock for victims to get the support they need, while supporters say the concerns are unfounded and that the law is aimed at criminals, not victims.
While some legal provisions remain standing after the July 2010 plugging of the most controversial parts, authorities often continue to follow local regulations in areas that prefer to use the new SB 1070. A county sheriff said, "Everything is still on the shelf until the Supreme Court hears it." By mid-2012, the terms are still rarely used. The training that police have done to avoid racial profiling and understand federal immigration policies still has an overall beneficial effect.
A 2016 study found that the law "significantly reduces the flow of illegal workers to Arizona from Mexico by 30 to 70 percent."
More status
The Arizona law is one of several reasons for encouraging Democratic congress leaders to introduce proposals that address immigration. Senator Schumer sent a letter to Governor Brewer asking him to postpone the law while Congress was working on a comprehensive immigration reform, but Brewer quickly rejected the proposal.
Bills similar to SB 1070 were introduced in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina. None of them went to the last vote in 2010; politicians in nearly twenty countries propose to introduce similar legislation during their 2011 legislative calendar. Such proposals drew a strong reaction to and against, and some countries may have been waiting to see how Arizona's tariff law was in court before moving forward. Other countries along the Mexican - Texas, New Mexico, and California border - generally show little interest in following the Arizona road. This is because they already have a strong and strong Hispanic community, deep cultural relationships to Mexico, past experiences with bruised political warfare on this issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and perceptions among their populations that illegal immigration is less severe.
In March 2011, bills like Arizona have been defeated or failed to flourish in at least six states and momentum has shifted towards such imitative efforts. Reasons range from the opposition of business leaders to fears among legislators of the legal costs of defending the adopted measures. One country that passes legislation based in part on SB 1070, Utah, combines it with a guest work program directed in another direction (and in accordance with the spirit of the Utah Compact). Even in Arizona alone, additional crackdowns on illegal immigration have difficulty getting a share in the Arizona Senate. Other countries are still waiting to see what the outcome of the legal battle. In September 2011, Indiana, Georgia, and South Carolina have gone through rather similar steps and faced legal action. The size of other anti-illegal immigration, Alabama HB 56, is considered tougher than SB 1070; it was signed into law in June 2011. However, the federal court then blocked many key provisions of this law in those countries, and other provisions were imposed after the settlement of lawsuits.
Political career
State Senator Pearce rose to President of the Arizona Senate in January 2011. But he then suffered a shock defeat when he lost the November 2011 recall election. Among the reasons given for his loss was the desire for greater politeness in politics and easing tensions over immigration policies, and loss of support for Pearce among members of the LDS Church based on character problems. Other reasons for the defeat, such as concerns over Pearce's ethics in taking a free trip or third nomination involvement in the recall election, have nothing to do with SB 1070. In August 2012, Pearce lost a comeback offer in Prime Republican for nomination for the state senate senate for businessman Bob Worsley. Pearce was given another government job by the Maricopa County Treasurer.
Drafters of the law Kris Kobach won the election as the Kansas State Secretary, first defeating two other major Republican candidates, then winning elections against the powerful Democrats Chris Biggs with a wide margin. Sheriff Joe Arpaio was among those who campaigned for Kobach.
State Attorney General Goddard received a Democratic nomination in the election of the governor of Arizona 2010. Governor Jan Brewer went on to defeat him by 54 to 42 percent in the November 2010 election. A 2016 study found that an up-tick in Brewer's approval ratings because of the " proved sufficiently persistent to change the losing race for re-election to victory ".
Legal challenge
Legal theory: Supremacy Clause vs. concurrent enforcement
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized this law as a violation of the United States Constitutional Clause of the Supreme Court, which states that federal law, as long as its constitutional, is the most important of state laws. Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law said that "This law is clearly eliminated by federal law under the precedent of the Supreme Court."
According to Kobach, this law embodies the doctrine of "concurrent enforcement" -that is, that state law equals federal law in effect without any conflict-and Kobach states that he believes it will survive any challenge: "There are some can do and some countries can not do it, but this law makes the needle perfectly... Arizona only punishes what is already a crime under federal law. "State Senator Pearce notes that some past state legislation on immigration enforcement has been enforced in federal court. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court stated that the Immigration and Naturalization Act precludes local enforcement of the Act's legal provisions but does not preclude local enforcement of criminal provisions. The US Attorney General may enter into written agreements with state or local government agencies, where the agency's employees perform the function of immigration officers in connection with the investigation, arrest or detention of foreigners in the United States; however, such agreements are not required for agency employees to perform those functions.
On the other hand, various jurists are divided on whether the law will survive the challenges of the courts, with one law professor saying that "sitting right on the thin line of pure state criminal law and federal immigration laws are under control." The earlier lower court ruling in this field is not always consistent and the decision on the legality of the Bill of the US Supreme Court is one of the possible outcomes.
Initial court action
On April 27, 2010, Roberto Javier Frisancho, a natural born citizen and resident of Washington, D.C., who plans to visit Arizona, filed the first lawsuit against S.B. 1070. On April 29, 2010, National Coalition of Pastor Latino and Christian Leader and an Tucson police officer, Martin Escobar, filed a lawsuit against SB 1070, with each doing it separately in federal court. The National Coalition submission claims that the law robs the federal responsibility under the Supremacy Clause, and also that it is appropriate for racial profile making by imposing a "reasonable suspicion" requirement on police officers to check the immigration status of those who come with official conduct with in turn will be too many personal interpretations by each officer. Escobar's clothing argues that there is no racially neutral criterion available to him to suspect that someone is illegal immigrants, and that the application of the law will preclude police investigations in Hispanic-dominated areas. The lawsuit also claims the law violates federal law because the police and the city have no authority to perform immigration-related duties. The Tucson police department explained that Escobar did not act on his behalf, and they received many calls from residents complaining about his suit.
A Phoenix police officer, David Salgado, soon followed up with his own federal suit, claiming that to enforce the law he would be asked to violate the rights of Hispanics. He also said that he would be forced to spend his own time and resources to learn the legal requirements, and that he could be prosecuted whether he enacted the law or not.
On May 5, Tucson and Flagstaff became the first two cities to ratify legal action against the state of the Law; San Luis then joined them. However, in the middle of late May, none of them actually filed a lawsuit. By the end of May, the city of T
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments