Arizona SB 1070: Constitutional and Economic Concerns

Introduction: Arizona's Approach to Border Security

In an era where terrorism and international turmoil continues to dominate the news, it is understandable that many Americans would feel compelled to strengthen border security. However, Arizona has taken these concerns too far. Arizona SB 1070 is too extreme and violates the constitutional rights of legal immigrants, while also making economic and environmental efforts in the region much harder to fulfill. Overall, Arizona SB 1070 stands against the founding philosophy of the United States.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is a controversial border protection law that has raised concerns across the nation. Essentially, it is a "law requiring state and local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspected 'illegals'" (Olsen, 2011). Not only does this mean that anyone who appears Hispanic must carry proper documentation at all times, it also means immediate mass deportations are possible without the precautions typically taken. According to the research, "Law enforcement officers are required to, among other things, check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens during any lawful stop or in any other circumstance in which probable cause exists that an individual is an illegal alien" (Kraehenbuel, 2011). The state has also erected a massive wall across the desert to try to stop illegal crossings. Arizona has spent over $250 million on increased border security measures since the passing of SB 1070 — a massive expense at a time when many public resources were already strained by the financial recession that began in 2007.

Constitutional Violations and Racial Profiling

Despite the stated intention of increasing border security during an uncertain time, the law itself is a direct violation of constitutional rights. Serious complications arise from the law, as "all of these concern challenges to human dignity" (York & Schoon, 2011). Arizona SB 1070 is clearly unconstitutional: it allows law enforcement to use racial profiling when checking immigration status. Much of this enforcement relies on the stereotype of Hispanic appearance as the sole premise for demanding that individuals produce immigration paperwork, yet this is a region where many actual U.S. citizens are themselves of Hispanic descent. Law enforcement is therefore practicing "racial profiling and mass deportation" (Olsen, 2011), which amounts to a violation of constitutional rights for many Arizona residents.

The Civil War Amendments established that it is illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race. Yet this law openly flouts those Amendments and empowers officers to use racial profiling as a basis to harass, search, and question Arizona residents simply because of their ethnicity. This contradicts the basic premise the nation was founded on. As one scholar notes, "our multicultural present has roots in many decades of migration — east, west, north, and south" (Olsen, 2011). Rather than embracing that multicultural heritage, Arizona law enforcement is using SB 1070 to violate constitutional rights.

Federal Preemption and State Overreach

Arizona is also clearly overstepping its authority with respect to border patrolling. Border protection is a federal responsibility, yet Arizona has imposed its own rules in ways that directly conflict with federal law. Supporters of SB 1070 "demonstrated their discontent by passing state and local laws intended to modify the extent to which federal immigration law — an area of law in which 'formulation of policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress' — is enforced" (Kraehenbuel, 2011). Rather than lobbying Congress for stronger federal enforcement, Arizona took the matter into its own hands — a direct challenge to federal authority. The "United States government has brought suit to enjoin enforcement of SB 1070" (Kraehenbuel, 2011), a legal action tied both to violations of constitutional rights and to the principle that state laws cannot override or disregard federal law.

Conclusion: Balancing Security and American Values

Overall, the law is clearly a violation of many constitutional rights, as well as the economic and environmental health of the region. Yes, border security should be a major concern, but we should not let fear override better judgment. There are approaches that promote border security without destroying American values in the process.