Arizona Immigration

Civil rights organizations warned Arizona public officials that their controversial legislation Senate Bill 1070 (SB 107) would result in racial profiling. Essentially, SB 1070 requires law enforcement to verify citizenship when they suspect someone is an illegal immigrant. SB 1070 advocates argued that the legislation’s provisions would protect the state from such actions because law enforcement could not use race or color in their determinations. However, on June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office was indeed guilty of racial profiling. Nevertheless, Arizonians and Americans continue to worry about illegal immigration and its toll on United States resources, but many states are unsure or unequipped to handle it. At one point, Arizona’s immigration legislation provided a guideline for other states to follow; however, after the Supreme Court ruling, future state policies must ensure that their law enforcement does not base their suspicions on race as they conduct their investigations. The Supreme Court ruled that Arizona law enforcement explicitly targeted the Latino community, but it is likely that Arizona’s police force was unaware of their actions. If individual states want to curb the number of illegal immigrants, they will have to consider our Constitution and anti-discrimination as they provide their officers with specific training regarding impartial bias. 

Arizona has been the forefront state when it comes to establishing illegal immigrant legislation. Initially, Arizona instituted state legislation that penalized any employer who knowingly hired illegal immigrants because our “federal law [does] not penalize employers of unauthorized workers” (Harvard Law Review, 2013, p. 1610). Federal law allows states to use their own legislation when it pertains to undocumented workers, but many critics disagreed with Arizona’s tactics because they claimed Arizona did not abide by constitutional laws. Harvard Law Review (2013) has asserted, “Employment is at the heart of controversy surrounding illegal immigration” (p. 1608). The majority of Americans tend to agree because our unemployment rates are low and many citizens are out of work. Subsequently, critics of SB 1070 have noted that it is not only officers who unknowingly act on preconceived notions, but because of media coverage, American citizens have come to view immigrants as a destructive element in our society. For example, in their study, Diaz et al. (2011) have found that American citizens continue to hold negative attitudes towards immigrants because they burden the US economy, welfare, and educational and health care systems. Therefore some natural citizens contend our government should devise a way to distinguish immigrants’ legal status and their skill levels before they allow them to permanently reside in the United States. 

Specifically, United States citizens believe that immigrants should contribute to the country as a whole. Poser et al. (2013) have noted that “significant contributions to US social welfare…[includes] important skills [to] fill gaps in the labor market” (p. 290). Therefore, Arizona was well within its right to establish internal state procedures because they were acting out of concern for the state. Incidentally, it was actually in response to these concerns that Arizona felt compelled to take action. Penalizing employers fell within the state’s constitutional rights; however, SB 1070 promoted discrimination because of law enforcement’s lack of training and overzealous attitudes. Nevertheless, in order to legally identify illegal immigrants, police officers will require significant training. 

While Arizona continued to use their individual state’s discretion regarding immigration, their latest proposal, SB 1070, did not go over well because critics accused law enforcement of basing their investigations on racial profiling. Beginning in April 2010, when Arizona police had a lawful reason to detain people, they were able to question the detainee’s immigration status. If the person produced a United States issued driver’s license or a government-issued green card, police officers would recognize he or she was a legal citizen. However, Nier et al. (2012) have asserted that Arizona’s laws will lead to racial profiling in spite of the state’s statute that forbids law enforcement from basing their verification on “race, color, or national origin” (p. 6). In other words, the authors predict that law enforcement will unintentionally suspect those with darker skins and ethnic dress as illegal immigrants. After all, first impressions usually rely on physical appearance or behavior. Naturally, if a person breaks the law, police officers are well within their obligatory duties to arrest and detain that person. However, critics question the ambiguity of what leads police officers to ask for immigration status. In essence, SB 1070 inadvertently leads law enforcement to target people who look as though they are foreign.  

While racial profiling is often unintentional, it usually affects those who look as though they are minorities. Specifically, Nier et al. (2012) have emphasized that SB 1070 would impact Latinos, Middle Easterners, and Arabs, so instead of the law singling out illegal immigrants it would “involve the civil liberties for the nation as a whole (p. 6). America is a virtual melting pot of many cultures, so our diverse nation appears to be a welcome area for a variety of nationalities. Therefore, the untrained officer may assume those who are darker are illegal immigrants. If officers had specific training regarding how to detect illegal immigrants, they would not be in danger of profiling people based on their race. Instead, officers are left with their preconceived notions on what determines an illegal immigrant. 

In their jobs, police officers work under high-pressure environments, and they may unconsciously base their decisions on two forms of subtle bias. One, “Private racists” (Neir et al., 2012, p.9) are those who have hidden beliefs regarding race. In fact, the majority might be unaware that they are exhibiting racist attitudes because it is how they grew up. On the other hand, “implicit bias” (Neir et al., 2012, p. 9) is difficult to define because it is an unconscious form of racism. When we perform unconscious actions, we usually do not question, nor do we notice our actions. Instead, we act out of instinct or learned behavior. In the case of implicit bias regarding race, if police officers typically arrest Latinos, they may have conditioned themselves to believe that the majority of Latinos break the law. In essence, illegal immigrants are breaking our laws, so it may be an officer’s natural response to assume every dark-skinned person may potentially be an illegal presence. However, specific training that defines protocol and does not rely on an individual’s subjective decision making will provide officers with a definitive guide in which they carry out their duties.

Conversely, SB 1070 advocates have claimed that Arizona’s modifications to the law are very specific, so the legislation would not encourage racial profiling. For example, Kobach (2010) asserted Arizona legislation opponents are over-reacting because “In four different sections…S.B. 1070 goes to extraordinary lengths to protect against racial profiling; [and] most state and federal statutes do not include such special protection in their text” (p. 31). However, simply stating law enforcement is not allowed to use “race, color, or national origin” is hardly specific. The law requires more than a brief clause.  In order to protect the state and the individual, legislation must contain specific language. Perhaps Arizona’s statute should read that police officers should not consider dark or tan skin, black or brunette hair, black or dark brown eyes and accents as a cause for suspicion. While this too is general, it is an example of specific text. In addition to specifics, additional training will allow police officers to base their further investigations only after the person is unable to produce documentation of their citizenship. 

Because law enforcement protects the same laws, they usually practice common protocol. For example, across the country, if an officer pulled over a person for a speeding violation, he or she would ask for a driver’s license and proof of registration and insurance. It is how officers operate, and most drivers are familiar with, or have heard of, their process. Eastman (2012) has noted that SB 1070 separates Arizona from the other states. Therefore, there are no familiar or common guidelines that reveal their process. Specifically, Eastman (2012) has suggested that Arizona’s use of “our” in SB 1070 is a questionable term that adds to the controversy. For example, SB 1070 statute reads “In response to a serious problem of unauthorized immigration along the Arizona‐Mexico border, the State of Arizona enacted its own immigration law enforcement policy” (Eastman, 2012, p. 570). This reiterates that it is not a national law, so each state will end up implementing a variety of illegal immigration laws that may contradict with one another or operate in different ways. Because federal law dictated the country’s laws as a whole, Arizona separated itself from the country. Furthermore, if Arizona police suggest doubt in the legality of the suspected illegal immigrant’s documentation, they are essentially discriminating against the person, so in the event that the person looks as though he or she comes from another country, the police risk racial profiling. 

Therein lay the potential legal challenges because while Arizona is not denying anyone his or her constitutional rights, the lack of solid criteria and police training risk inadvertent racial profiling. In fact, currently, ABC News (2013) has reported that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio had to postpone his initial efforts against the influx of immigrants after “a federal judge concluded…that the sheriff's office had racially profiled Latinos in its patrols (para. 2). Part of Arpaio’s campaign included infiltrating communities, which often were largely Latino, and seeking lawbreakers. Based on his choice of locations, the Supreme Court found him guilty. While Arpaio will not have to endure jail time, his political influence has suffered because it is largely believed that he allowed his officers to abuse the law. Arizona was essentially the leader in state-mandated immigration, so the result of their hearing impacts the future of immigration laws. Initially, other states used Arizona’s legislation as a guideline, but now they will have to use another example. For what it is worth, it seems that state legislations realize that racial profiling is not an obvious undertaking, but an unconscious reaction based on an individual’s psyche. 

Because Arizona did not provide specific training, they almost encouraged racial profiling. In actuality, using means such as secondary investigations is a relatively good way to rid the United States of potentially dangerous illegal immigrants. However, Nier et al. (2012) have explained that “Arizona law enforcement officials [had] not …been given clear guidance about what will constitute a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of unlawful presence” (p. 10).  Common sense dictates that a lack of government-issued identification may be solid evidence regarding citizenship; however, law enforcement has to have a lawful purpose for detaining the person. In other words, police officers should continue to patrol where they normally would. In addition, a specifically trained department should be in charge of investigating citizenship while using the background evidence that police officials provide. At times, illegal immigrants are allowed temporary citizenship, so officials have to take that into consideration as well. 

Incidentally, temporary work Visas have added another dimension to the current debate. Wilson (2008) has argued that current legislation is contradictory because it allows the state to rid itself of established undocumented immigrants yet import temporary immigrant workers to fill jobs. Basically, states have the necessary immigrant workforce, but they are undocumented, so in that way illegal. Unfortunately, the majority of illegal immigrants also have families who reside with them. Therefore, states will have to deport children who are born in the United States, but to illegal immigrant parents, as well. In this way, it denies the US-born children their constitutional rights. As Poser (2013) has noted “the state can be seen as akin to an employer, and immigration law can then be understood” (p. 295) because we will equate it to applying for a job. We have to endure the application process and screening in order to gain employment, so in a sense; individual states can regulate their screening process in much the same way. It is shared knowledge that the United States allows more immigrants than any other countries, so in order to protect our laws, we need to establish specific rules that each state is accountable for. 

In addition, our country has a long history with discrimination, so we can recall our mistakes and incorporate our solutions into current immigration law. Diaz et al. (2011) have recalled that “The Irish Catholics were the first wave of immigrants that alarmed many Protestants, native-born Americans” (p. 302). Subsequently, Americans are territorial of their country. At the same time, Catholics and Protestants ended up working together to establish the country we live in today. In much the same way, Americans and state legislations can determine what will help the country rather than focus on the fact that some have come from other countries. On the other hand, our past usually blamed poor economies with immigrants, so we may continue to have negative opinions when we consider immigration.

However, because immigrants will continue to pursue the much idealized American Dream, state policies must consider cost-effective means to provide law enforcement with training. Due to the nature of their work, law enforcement officers have to make quick decisions under pressure, so they may inadvertently use subtle bias. Neir et al. (2012) argued that ‘While automatic processing of information is efficient, in the sense that it allows people to reach decisions quickly, automatic processes are notoriously susceptible to implicit racial biases” (p. 10). Therefore, it may be the work instead of the person’s attitude that leads one to discriminate. Perhaps, Arizona will not be the only state to be found guilty of racial profiling. However, appropriate training may alleviate the risk. On the other hand, “finding the appropriate linkages between psychological research and legal practice has proven to be quite challenging” (Neir et al., 2012, p. 9). Law enforcement may be under too much pressure, so their temperaments are only due to their situations. At the same time, police officers are responsible for defending our rights, and Nier et al. (2012) have argued that SB 1070 goes against our current anti-discrimination laws because “the intent of the immigration law is to include, while civil-rights laws generally promote inclusion” (p. 7).  With that in mind, it seems that a non-biased and separate entity should control immigration. While some suggest each state’s Attorney General’s Office should control immigration, they already have to ensure legislations and law enforcement obeys current immigration laws. Therefore, it is not worth that conflict of interest. 

Because Arizona, and the other states that have followed their example, have substantial data regarding their arrests or determinations, they can use that as background for research. Using research methodology will not be the only means to produce positive results; however, we can use that research to develop training programs for law enforcement. Otherwise, as Harvard Law Review (2013) has noted if immigration advocates and opponents are unable to reach a consensus, the Obama Administration will practice unilateral executive action. If they do, state legislation will no longer have a say in their communities. Therefore, if we take appropriate measures before future mistakes, we can determine the safest and most legal way to decrease illegal immigration yet offer legal immigrants a sense of security. 

In sum, our Constitution protects the rights of all legal citizens. In order to uphold it, we must practice it as well. Discrimination is an illegal act, and racial profiling is a negative act. When law enforcement combines the two, it leads to discreditable authority and diminished community confidence. Arizona is not the only state to tackle illegal immigration, so it would be a wise investment in our future to ensure our police officers receive solid training that will protect our country. 

References

Billeaud, J. (2013, June 8). Ariz. sheriff suspends immigration efforts [ABC news story reported by the Associated Press]. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arpaio-temporarily-suspends-immigration-efforts-19345499#.UbPjYvmTjE1

Diaz, P., Saenz, D. S., & Kwan, V. S. (2011). Economic dynamics and changes in attitudes toward undocumented Mexican immigrants in Arizona. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, No-No. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01255.x

Eastman, J. C. (2012). Papers, please: Does the Constitution permit the states a role in immigration enforcement? (Age of Austerity): An article from: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 35(3), 569-592. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/studorgs/jlpp/

Immigrant rights & immigration enforcement. (2013). Harvard Law Review, 126(6), 1565-1682. Retrieved from http://www.harvardlawreview.org

Kobach, K. (2010, June 7). Defending Arizona. The National Review. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/

Nier, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Nier, C. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Can racial profiling be avoided under Arizona Immigration Law? Lessons learned from subtle bias research and anti-discrimination law. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12(1), 5-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01248.x

Posner, E. A. (2013). Immigration law and institutional design: The institutional structure of immigration law. University of Chicago Law Review, 80, 289-313. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com/

Wilson, T. D. (2008). Research note: Issues of production vs. reproduction/maintenance revisited: Towards an understanding of Arizona’s immigration policies. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(3), 713-718. doi: 10.1353/anq.0.0026