Constitutional Pros and Cons of Arizona\u2019s Immigration Law <\/p>\n
(Author\u2019s name)<\/p>\n
(Institutional Affiliation)<\/p>\n
In April 2010, the state of Arizona implemented two laws concerning immigration, HB 2162 and SB 1070. These two laws added new requirements by the state, penalties and crimes related to the implementation and enforcement of immigration laws and were supposed to be implemented and used by the start on 29 July 2010 (Senate Bill 1070). However, before these laws could be implemented, the United States of America department of justice filed a lawsuit against the state requesting for an injunction against these two laws pointing out that they were not drawn according to the requirements and guidelines of the constitution. The judge appointed to handle the case, Judge Bolton granted the request by the justice department for the injunction on 28 July 2010 partly and directed those provisions related to the officers of state law determining the status of an immigrant during any unlawful stop; the requirement to carry around registration papers for aliens; the prohibition to apply for jobs without authority; and the permission for arrests without warrants if a probable cause is present the offense would make the individual is removable from the US. The governor to the Arizona state Jan brewer appealed the injunction, but the court still upheld the injunction (Fierros, 2010). <\/p>\n
This paper will analyze the Arizona immigration laws, summarized under the two laws SB 1070 and HB 2162. It will also look at the cons and pros of these laws as reflected by the constitution and in the end take a position and support it showing and citing the perceptions as to why the constitution defends or does not defend the position. <\/p>\n
The SB 1070 law, which supports the enforcement of law and safe neighborhoods. The law was approved by the legislature of Arizona on 19 April 2010 and was later signed into law on 23 April 2010 by Governor Brewer. The law includes laws and provisions that ass the penalties of the sate relating to enforcement laws on immigration including harboring, trespassing, alien registration documents, transport of illegal migrants, human smuggling and employer sanctions (Senate Bill 1070). The trespassing provision seems to be the first like it to be implemented in the US. In the most current reports on state immigration laws by the NCSL, few states have tried to come with violation of state trespassing rules for unlawful entry and presence. Arizona tried but failed to bring up these bills in 2009 and 2008 consecutively, Texas tried in 2009 and California in 2007. On the same day the bill was signed into law, the governor issued an order requiring all the peace officers standards and training boards in Arizona to come up with training programs to make sure that officials for law enforcement and agencies make use of the SB 1070 law according to the federal laws controlling immigration, protecting the civil rights of all individuals and respecting the immunities and privileges of the citizens of the US. The executive order also required clear guidelines as to what is defined as reasonable suspicion. The board is required to provide a list of the specific identification forms that provide a presumption that an individual is not an alien present in the US illegally (Senate Bill 1070). <\/p>\n
Many individuals have raised numerous questions concerning the implementation and the applicability of the SB 1070 law in the constitution. Some questions and issues arise from questions concerning the costs to the state for enforcing and implementing federal immigration laws, especially with the tight budget and constrictive economy. Interested parties want to know how the state and those that follows will interpret reasonable suspicion of immigrant\u2019s status, and the small list of papers eligible to demonstrate presence that is lawful. Challenges from the court have raised issues of the constitution including equal protection under the fourteenth amendment, due process, the prohibition on unreasonable seizure and search under the fourth amendment, and preemption as per the Supremacy Clause of the United States constitution (Senate Bill 1070). <\/p>\n
On 29 April 2010, the Arizona legislature also approved the HB 2162 law, which the governor later signed that included provisions meant to address concerns of racial profiling. This particular law amended the first one to specify that officials of law enforcement cannot consider color, race and national origin when implementing and applying the provisions of the original law, except as allowed by the Arizona constitution and the US constitution. The law clarified the original language of the law concerning reasonable suspicion by requiring the local and state law enforcement to reasonably try to determine the immigration status of an individual only while in the process of a stop that is lawful and legal, arrest or detention. The HB 2162 law also indicated that a lawful detention, stop or arrest must be in the enforcement any other ordinance or law of a city, county or town of the Arizona state. These laws have both pros and cons, which have been cited widely by the supporters and those opposing the implementation of these laws (House Bill 2162). <\/p>\n
The laws, for instance, have numerous pros. For example, the Arizona immigration law merely implements and enforces existing laws. There are already a lot of federal immigration laws on book that many states have not implemented yet. All Arizona did was take a step further from the rest of the other states who have not yet enforced the immigration laws they already have. Another pro is that the Arizona immigration laws are necessary, even though they are a bit awkward. These laws will place more restrictions to the entry of criminals and other unattractive individuals in the eyes of the law, therefore, making the state safer place for all of its citizens. Another pro is that this state has the right to fight against illegal immigrants. There has been a lot of crime and the laws will curb violence related to illegal immigration, which the governor thinks (Fierros, 2010). <\/p>\n
With these few pros, the laws are also faced with other numerous cons, which those against the law have been relying on to fight their implementation and enforcement. One of the cons of the bill is that the illegal immigration law of Arizona in indecent and inhuman. Most have termed the laws as arbitrary, racist, mean- spirited, oppressive, and unjust to the affected individuals. Many have argued that the only positive thing about the bill is that it might have gone too far such that it became unconstitutional. Another con that is common in the debates concerning these laws is that the new Arizona immigration laws establish a new class of suspects, especially one based on ethnicity. This law and the new class of ethnicity suspects makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live void of scrutiny, but it also makes it harder for a number of American people to live without humiliation and suspicion (Fierros, 2010). <\/p>\n
Another con is that the Arizona immigration laws create an environment of recrimination and fear. Most of the 2 million Hispanic people living in Arizona live in fear and the laws have denied them personal freedom. Many of them will without no doubt be afraid to walk outside, especially those without paper even when they are legally American. Another con is the statements against immigration laws of Arizona. Individuals are arguing that the laws that were signed in 2010 threaten numerous family values that many families have struggled to create in the state (Fierros, 2010). <\/p>\n
Though the both sides of the debate present reasonable points in an attempt to defend their position, this paper takes the position that the Arizona immigration laws are unconstitutional and unfair to the Latino community and the American community. The American constitution was established on the basis of equality, fairness and freedom for all. With the new Arizona immigration laws, it is hard not to see that these laws do not support the American constitution and what it stands for. The laws are discriminatory; they are unjust, and unfair to the people concerned. They also deny these people their freedom and limit their ability to walk around and enjoy their whereabouts and homes. The Arizonian state should look for other means to control and regulate crimes; violence and any other repercussions they think are, as a result, of illegal immigrants, instead of violating the constitutional rights on millions of individuals. <\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Fierros, A. (2010). War on Arizona\u2019s immigration law: DOJ is in. Examiner. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.examiner.com\/border-and-immigration-in-los-angeles\/war-on-arizona-s-immigration-law-doj-is-in<\/p>\n
House Bill 2162. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.azleg.gov\/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=2162Senate Bill 1070. Retrieved from \u00a0http:\/\/www.azleg.gov\/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Constitutional Pros and Cons of Arizona\u2019s Immigration Law (Author\u2019s name) (Institutional Affiliation) In April 2010, the state of Arizona implemented<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n