The recent decision of the Supreme Court to partially, but fully, prevent Arizona from enforcing federal and/or state immigration law on its own behalf makes sense on some levels but Arizona does seem to have some valid concerns based on what the federal government has done in the past and what they are unable and/or unwilling to do so now.
Arizona vs. USA
The recent Supreme Court spat between the United States and the state of Arizona has raised some interesting questions. These questions include whether and when laws are clearly discriminatory in nature, whether the federal government should have sole dominion over immigration enforcement, whether the federal government is indeed doing its assign duties as far as immigration enforcement goes and what levels of involvement the state can or should have given the answers to the above. While the points made by the United States are certainly valid and the decision by the Supreme Court is technically valid because the state law SB 1070 should indeed be enjoined, the court also made a valid point by stating that it is not beyond the pale to consider whether or not the state law even conflicts with the federal one.
Analysis
As ordered by the parameters of this assignment, this is not an opinion piece. That being said up front, it is clear that while the federal government is charged with and empowered to create and enforce the immigration laws of the United States, it is crystal clear that they are not doing so all that well. The main manifestation of this being proven true is the fact that the current talk about a mass legalization of illegal immigrants is by no means new. Mass legalization was actually done already in the 1960's and then again in the 1980's. This would mark the third time in a half century that this topic has come up. The resistance to the mass legalization and the suppression of state involvement in arresting and deporting illegal immigrants is quite palpable now because the repetitious cycle of not enforcing the law nearly strongly enough and then effectively rewarding those that ignore the law is a pattern now and many people at the federal and state levels of government want to break that vicious cycle.
As far as what this all means to Arizona and what led to the actions that came before the Supreme Court, it is clear that Arizona's proximity to the Mexico and their fairly predictable anger directed towards the United States government has led them to at least empower themselves to enforce federal law that is already on the books and has been for some time. To be fair, a person that is in the United States in absence of a valid visa or other legal immigration status is breaking the law. However, if a state or local law enforcement agent catches such a person, they are now often being told that they have no authority or responsibility to do anything negative to that person and that they are being racist because they are singling out Hispanics. The federal government, even if they wanted to, does not the resources to enforce these laws on their own and it stands to reason that they should welcome the help of state and local authorities if they are able and willing to help.
However, while racism is certainly possible and is a valid point of argument either in court or in general, to suggest that "having one's papers" has racist connotations is quite dubious. Just as one example, people of all races are expected to be able to identify themselves if they are engaged by law enforcement. This is no more racist than when a person is carded at an airport security checkpoint or when they are proving that they are a credit card holder or that they are old enough to buy booze or cigarettes. The argument that keeping one's visa card, state-issued ID or something similar is a huge burden is just beyond the pale. Everyone, not just Hispanics, should be able to prove who they are given certain circumstances and indeed people can be thrown in jail, Hispanic or not, if they cannot or will not do so (ACLU, 2013). Exceptions can and should be made for the mentally ill and young children, but those exceptions are already allowed for. As such, to suggest that Arizona is racist or unreasonable for expecting does not appear to be explainable or supported using logical or legal terms.
While it is often wise to keep the state and local authorities out of the business of enforcing federal law, an exception should possibly be made for immigration law because state and local authorities are unavoidably and majorly involved with illegal immigrants and if a state or local authority catches an illegal immigrant, just releasing them because it is not a federal staffer that caught them is a waste of resources and perhaps speaks to the idea that being protective of immigrant rights always overrides national security concerns (Flannery, 2013). State and local authorities catch people for federal offenses all the time, like kidnapping for example, so it makes sense that the states can help with immigration enforcement as well (Department of Justice, 2013). This would save federal spending dollars and would put all agencies on the same page. However, potential detriments are state and local agencies engaging in racial profiling and otherwise over-stepping their ethical guidelines or their duties in general. However, it could be a win-win if the roles and rules are clearly defined and followed.
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.