Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

This work in writing examines Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Law and how this law has impacted the state of Arizona, the citizens of Arizona, and the U.S. In its entirety as well as the conflicting views on SB1070 and seeks to determine is SB1070 is adherent to the tenants of federal immigration law.

Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

The objective of this work in writing is to briefly explain Arizona's SB1070 legislation and outline the flaws in the arguments against SB 1070 and will as well examine how Arizona's Immigration Law SB1070 is reflective of federal law. This work in writing should reference current court decisions regarding the new law and the potential for going all the way to the Supreme Court.


Arizona's Immigration Law SB 1070 sets out the imperative for the "cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona[and] declares that the intent of this at is to make attrition through enforcement of the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona" (State of Arizona, 2010) SB 1070 is stated to contain provisions that "are intended to work together and to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States." (State of Arizona, 2010) SB 1070 states that no official or agency in the state of Arizona, whether city, town or other political subdivision of the State of Arizona "may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." (State of Arizona, 2010)

I. Trespassing

SB 1070 states that an individual is guilty of trespassing in the United States if the individual is both: (1) present on any public or private land in the states of Arizona; (2) in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

II. Punishment

Punishment for the first violation of SB 1070 results in a $500 fine and is a misdemeanor however, if the individual violates SB 1070 while being in possession of: (1) a dangerous drug as defined in Section 13-3401; (2) precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of Section 13-3404.01; (3) a deadly weapon or dangerous instruments as defined in section 13-105; (4) property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in Section 13-2308.01. (State of Arizona, 2010)

III. Employing Aliens

SB 1070 states that knowingly employing unauthorized aliens will be a violation of subsection a of Section 6. Section 23-212 of SB 1070. There are several levels of violation and prescribed punishments for employing an unauthorized alien. (State of Arizona, 2010)

IV. Reactions to SB 1070

It was reported in April 2010 that the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer signed the toughest illegal immigration bill into law, which has as its focus the identification, prosecution, and deportation of illegal immigrants. It is reported that this move "unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally. Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it." (Archibold, 2010) President Obama is reported to have, while speaking at a naturalization ceremony taking place for 24 active-duty service members that was held in the White House Rose Garden, that there should be a "federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid "irresponsibility by others." (Archibold, 2010) President Obama reportedly states that the Arizona law could well serve to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." (Archibold, 2010)

The law is stated to have been held in the view of both those supporting and those protesting the law "the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status." (Archibold, 2010)

The Foreign Ministry of Mexico is reported to have stated "it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona." (Archibold, 2010) the report states that Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles stated that the "authorities' ability to demand documents was like Nazism." (Archibold, 2010) the Governor of Arizona stated that the law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix." (Archibold, 2010) Arizona is reported to be the first U.S. state to demand "immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil." (Archibold, 2010)

The concern of critics was addressed and acknowledged by Ms. Brewer and she stated that she would " to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law." (Archibold, 2010) SB 1070 makes a requirement that police officers "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment. It also makes it a state crime -- a misdemeanor -- to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced. " (Archibold, 2010) it is reported that states across the United States have either proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states" (Archibold, 2010)

V. What Say the Critics

Critics of S.B. 1070 are plentiful and include the criticisms stated by NBC correspondent who is stated to in his use of "police-state nomenclature" to join an exclusive club of liberal bloggers who cognitive abilities are limited to comparing the Republican Party to the Third Reich." (Fitzsimmons, 2011) Fitzsimmons reports that on the Huffington Post one creative headline reads as follows: "Arizona's SB1070 Gestapo Law Reveals Right Wing Version of Liberty." (Fitzsimmons, 2011) on the ACLU of Nevada's site it is stated that the "liberal attorneys employ esoteric legalese that would send Justice Scalia scrambling for the nearest thesaurus: "Arizona's 'show me your papers' law dealt a stunning blow." (Fitzsimmons, 2011)

VI. Arizona Immigration Law S.B. 1070: Most Controversial Parts Barred

In July 2010, it was reported that a federal judge "barred the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law S.B. 1070 from going into effect until a final decision is reached in the federal government's lawsuit against the state that seeks to overturn the law." (American City & County, 2010) it is specifically reported that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton "blocked the part of the law that would require law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of people they believe are in the country illegally, a clause that requires legal aliens to carry their proof of residency with them at all times, and the section that makes it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places." (American City & County, 2010)

The court states findings that the United States is "likely to suffer irreparable harm if the court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States' favor considering the public interest" according to what Bolton wrote in her decision. (American City & County, 2010) According to Bolton the "enjoined sections of S.B. 1070 placed too much burden on legal immigrants "because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked." (American City & County, 2010)

It is reported that under Section 2(b) of S.B. 1070 "all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement." (American City & County, 2010)

The increase in requests for immigration status confirmation by the state due to this law would "impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established." ( American City & County, 2010) it is stated that the residents of Arizona would be harmed beyond repair if S.B. 1070 were to be blocked. Brewer is reported to stated as follows: "My filing today makes clear that the federal government will suffer no harm if S.B. 1070 is implemented because the act requires only that Arizona's law enforcement officers act in accordance with their constitutional authority and congressionally established federal policy." (American City & County, 2010)

VII. Supreme Court Ruling

It is reported that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld SB 1070 requiring…

Cite This Term Paper:

"Arizona Immigration Law SB1070" (2011, May 30) Retrieved August 16, 2017, from

"Arizona Immigration Law SB1070" 30 May 2011. Web.16 August. 2017. <>

"Arizona Immigration Law SB1070", 30 May 2011, Accessed.16 August. 2017,