Arizona's SB1070 immigration law and federal compliance adherence

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.

Introduction

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)

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 employers to use the E-Verify database to ensure the legal immigration status of new employees. The U.S. Chamber of Congress is reported to have sued the state because its "Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) violated the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which prohibits states from enforcing federal immigration laws with civil or criminal penalties. The Supreme Court upheld several minor court decisions that found LAWA, which was passed in 2007, did not violate IRCA because it only threatened to repeal the licenses of businesses that employ illegal aliens or which failed to use E-Verify." (American City and County, 2011)

It is reported that the District Court found that the IRCA's plain language in the preemption clause was not in violation of the Arizona law because the law "did no more than impose licensing conditions on businesses operating within the state. Nor was the state law preempted with respect to E-Verify, the court concluded, because although Congress had made the program voluntary at the national level, it had expressed no intent to prevent states from mandating participation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed." (American City and County, 2011)

Additionally reported is that the ICRA prohibits states from the imposition of "civil or criminal sanctions on those who employ unauthorized aliens, it preserves state authority to impose sanctions through licensing and similar laws." (American City and County, 2011) Chief Justice John Roberts is reported to have stated as follows: "That is what the Arizona law does -- it instructs courts to suspend or revoke the business licenses of in-state employers that employ unauthorized aliens." (American City and County, 2011)

Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer states that she "could not be more gratified" by the court's decision. "Arizona's employer sanctions law allows the vast majority of businesses that want to play by the rules to comply with federal and state laws against hiring illegal aliens, and seeks to punish those employers who take advantage of the federal government's immigration failures," Brewer said in a statement. "One result of the Legal Arizona Workers Act: Arizona employers now lead the nation in the use of the federal E-Verify system for determining the legal status of new employees." (American City and County, 2011)

Brewer states the hope that the decision on LAWA of the Supreme Court "bodes well for the state's planned appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in July barred implementation of key parts of Arizona's controversial immigration reform law S.B. 1070." (American City and County, 2011) it is reported that SB 1070 would empower law enforcement officers in the state to check the status of immigration of the criminal suspects however, that part of the law was thrown out in a lawsuit that the Obama administration brought in the Ninth Circuit Court. (American City and County, 2011) Brewer is noted as having stated "In light of [the court's] decision [on LAWA,] I am more adamant than ever that states do have a complimentary role in enforcing federal immigration laws, despite the Obama administration's opposition at every turn." (American City and County, 2011)

Summary and Conclusion

This work in writing sought to examine and explain Arizona's SB1070 legislation and specifically the Immigration Act contained in SB1070 and further to ascertain the adherence of SB1070 to federal law. Examination of SB1070 reveals that set out in this Act is the objective of cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout the state of Arizona. SB1070 is inclusive of provisions that serve to both discourage and deter aliens and their unlawful entry into the United States as well as deterring economic activity by individuals who are present in the U.S. unlawfully. This Act specifies that no authority in the State of Arizona can enforce limitations or restrictions on federal immigration law enforcement that is less than the extent that federal law permits. There has been a great deal of criticism of SB1070 however, the Governor of the State of Arizona is adamant that SB1070 adheres precisely to federal immigration laws and states that she believes that the laws contained in this Act are necessary and appropriate for addressing the problem of illegal immigration in the United States. This study has examined SB1070, compared SB1070 with federal laws on illegal immigration, and found that SB1070 is comparable to the federal immigration laws. Legislation of this Act in Arizona is perhaps viewed as harsh since other U.S. states have traditionally and historically failed to enforce federal immigration laws however, reports reviewed during the course of this study indicate that more U.S. states are now seeking to enforce immigration laws and for various reasons. While it is certain that these laws serve to make the lives of legal immigrants more difficult to maneuver, simultaneously, there does appear to be a move on the part of the consensus to bring about enforcement to federal standards of law in the area of immigration.