Arizona\'s New Immigration Law Is a Fundamental

Arizona's new immigration law is a fundamental violation of the principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1994, and existing federal non-discrimination legislation. The law enables police to randomly stop and demand proof of citizenship from people who the authorities think are illegal aliens. This law will obviously have a disproportionate impact upon individuals of non-white heritage, particularly Hispanics. The law "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" (Archibald 2010).

One of the fundamental rights of all citizens, as codified in the Bill of Rights, is the right not to be illegally searched. While some exceptions have been made for warrantless searches by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as general traffic stops to screen all individuals for drunk driving or wearing their seatbelts, this law specifically targets individuals of a particular 'profile' -- namely, those people because of their appearance or accent who 'seem' illegal. A legal citizen who was Hispanic, African, or Indian and spoke with an accent could conceivably be very easily detained through this law. It seems unreasonable to require all citizens who might be 'suspect' (i.e. non-white) to carry legal evidence of citizenship -- even when going for a jog around their neighborhood in the morning. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Arizona legislation seems fundamentally misguided and is likely to be judged by future generations as one of the worst decisions of the court during this era (Jonsson 2011; Savage 2011) . The law has been opposed by the NAACP and other groups that have historically supported civil liberties of disenfranchised Americans.

Not only is this law bad for civil liberties, it is also bad publicity abroad for America, making the nation look intolerant of individuals of different heritages, rather than the land of liberty: "Mexico's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona" (Archibald 2010). While supporters of the law state that racial profiling will not be tolerated, it seems inevitable given the broad legal powers given to law enforcement personnel. The law explicitly requires 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" and "makes it a state crime -- a misdemeanor -- to not carry immigration papers" (Archibald 2010).

Instead of a single, united nation, this creates a clear divide between individuals of recent, non-white ancestry and those who are Caucasian. It also has dubious utility, since it would very likely mean that many people who are not illegal immigrants would be detained, solely on the basis of their personal appearance. Valuable resources of law enforcement would be diverted to harassing innocent citizens.