Arizona's SB1070

In the comments section of my post on Peter King’s hearings on Radical Islam, commenters Lynn, Becky and Jimi challenge fellow commenter BillW on his statements regarding SB1070. Bill sees the law as racially discriminatory. Indeed, he sees it as a piece of legislation that, “requires people to be investigated because of their 'Mexican-ness'”. Lynn argues that the law only targets those who have already committed crimes and are suspected of being illegal. Bill argues that this does not justify targeting specific races. Becky joins the fray, arguing that the Arizona laws include measures “to apply not just to one particular ethnicity, but to illegal immigrants in general.” Jimi challenges us to actually read the bill.

I promised to weigh in on the topic, and mean to deliver on that promise, but, through researching, I have found that I know a great deal less about the topic than I thought I did. I have also found most of my attempts to discuss the issue very long-winded. So instead of focusing on the issue of illegal immigration as a whole, I will try to limit myself to discussing the Arizona laws. I followed Jimi’s advice and decided to read through the bill. The text of SB1070s can be found here:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I have read the bill over a number of times and have seen nothing in it that singles out a particular race. I even did a text search for “Mexican” and “Mexico” just in case, but I still came up with nothing.  So I have to side with Team Becky-Lynn-Jimi to some degree. The law seems to apply to people of every ethnicity.

However, I can sympathize with Bill’s view, because one can see how such a law might be abused. Bill is certainly not alone in his concern. Randal C. Archibold, writing for The New York Times, for instance, notes that many police groups are worried about how the law would be applied. Some condemned, arguing that it could lead to “racial and ethnic profiling.” Bill makes the same argument when he says:

“The law as written by the Arizona legislature and signed by the governor requires all public employees to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they think might be an illegal immigrant. The primary basis for thinking someone might be an illegal immigrant is their appearance.”

Bill is, I think, right to be concerned about this sort of application. But nothing in the law directs employees to consider appearance, and, in fact, the one mention SB1070 makes of race is this, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

Therefore, unless I have missed something (and as anyone who has followed my posts knows, that happens a lot), the law does not appear to be either racist or unconstitutional. But it certainly could be easily abused and I think Bill is right to keep his eyes open.

As a final note: I also agree with Bill’s observation that the immigration problem in America is much more complex than either giving amnesty or deporting every alien. Because I would not exist if America had not been such a melting pot, I have been largely in favor of immigration – especially when those who enter America are fleeing dangerous countries. Mexico certainly is one of these. In the past, I sometimes saw Mexican immigrants as something akin to Cuban asylum seekers and have only recently (and very reluctantly) come to believe in stronger border protection. This is largely due to problems with crime involving illegal immigrants (sometimes very brutal) and economics (See California’s health system). I hope to have more time to elaborate on these things, but for now, I  thought I should be honest about my position and biases. Thank you all for your comments and insights. You have given me a good deal to think about.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

"Arizona's lawmakers and citizens are right to be concerned about illegal immigration. But we must acknowledge that when Arizona goes it alone on this issue, unintended consequences inevitably occur. Last year, boycotts were called against our state's business community, adversely impacting our already-struggling economy and costing us jobs. Arizona-based businesses saw contracts canceled or were turned away from bidding. Sales outside of the state declined. Even a business which merely had "Arizona" in its name felt the effects of the boycotts, compelling them to launch an educational campaign about their company's roots in Brooklyn. It is an undeniable fact that each of our companies and our employees were impacted by the boycotts and the coincident negative image."

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=14266518

This law is about nullifying tribal mineral and water rights. South Dakota is next.

[Jimi]

Miranda,

"immigration problem in America is much more complex"

Either the laws of the United States mean something are to be inforced across the border without bias or they aren't?

You have to decide one way or the other. Attempting to take the wishy-washy middle ground is the same as sticking your head in the sand.

[Becky]

Jimi,

I don't think Miranda was taking a wishy-washy middle ground. America's problems with illegal immigrants are indeed complex. Consider the US policy on Cuba as she mentioned above. With different rules for different countries, immigration law is in and of itself complex and thus illegal immigration is also a complex issue.

I think you mean enforced, and I don't think Miranda was advocating any sort of leniency in the enforcement of US law, however future posts will tell.

[Anthony Renli]

The main issue with illegal immigration really is an issue of supply and demand. The majority of illegals are not here to commit crimes (well, other than illegally crossing the border) or to abuse our resources. They are here to work jobs picking fruit, working in meat packing plants, working in construction, and working in food service. Why? Because they can make more money here that translates into more money to send home. But Most Importantly they come here because they know that they can and will get hired by employers in the United States. They know that businesses will look the other way when three people show up with the same social security number. If we seriously want to cut down on illegal immigration, we need to go after the demand side of the supply and demand equation.

There is an illegal immigration problem in South Dakota, not as bad as in other states, but there is one. If the INS raided a meat packing plant in Aberdeen, guess what they would find? Or if they went to any number of construction sites? Or hit up (insert name of that cool little Mexican restaurant you know you like to eat at)? Why do businesses knowingly hire illegals? (make no mistake, they are doing it knowingly) Three reasons.
1) they will work for cheaper
2) they will accept worse working conditions than we would
3) they will work harder and longer for the lower pay in worse working conditions without complaining about it. (they can't complain and have to work hard or the boss/business owner/whatever can either fire them or call INS on them)

Until we have meaningful penalties (and I'm talking HIGH fines and/or jail time) for corporate officers/business managers/foremen/whoever who knowingly hire illegals, we will have an illegal immigration problem.

No one seems willing to go after the source of the problem, businesses who will hire cheap illegal labor. They go after the cheap illegal labor. As long as the businesses can get buy with a slap on the wrist, they will keep doing it.

[borderraven]

SB1070 will impact every race or ethnicity proportional to that race or ethnicity's contribution to illegal immigration. SB1070 appropriately punishes those who are or who aid illegal aliens, regardless of criminal history or work ethic. A deportable alien is a deportable alien.

[Miranda]

Thanks, all, for your comments. I am unusually busy this week, but will try to write a worthy response as soon as I can.

[Jimi]

Becky,

"Consider the US policy on Cuba"

There are 11 Million people in Cuba....We have twice that in Illegals already in the United States!

31% of the Illegals crossing the Southern Border are NOT Mexican! In the desert just outside Phoenix and Tucson the Federal Government has posted signs all througout the desert that state:

"Danger - Public Warning
Travel not recommended
-- Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area
-- Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates
-- Stay away from cash, clothing, backbacks and abandoned vehicles
-- If you see suspicious activity, do not confront! Move away and call 911"

The idiots running around claiming Racism, do not understand that there has been a crisis going on in the Arizona sector of the border. More people were killed due to violence within 100 miles of our southern border than have soldiers died in Afghansitan and Iraq combined during the same time period. Arizona has the right to protect it's sovreignty if the Federal Government refuses to due it for them.

[larry kurtz]

Becky, join ip in fighting for Statehood for Mexico: http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2011/02/ip-manifesto-updated.html

[duggersd]

Anthony, I have to agree with most of what you post. There is already a mechanism for enforcing problems with SS numbers. Supposedly, employers have to send in the numbers of all of their employees. If there is some sort of discrepancy, the number gets kicked out and the employer has to resolve the situation. As I recall, this is what got Meg Whitman into hot water. So, how it is that there are not more numbers kicked back for further review, I do not know. I agree when employers do knowingly hire illegal residents, they should have to pay very high fines and jail time.
I have often said that we have to be willing to pay for what we want. If illegal immigrants are not allowed to pick fruit, work in restaurants, etc. then we will have to be willing to pay more for those services. It is not that Americans are unwilling to do those jobs. It is that we are unwilling to do those jobs at the labor rate being offered. If there are no workers, wages would have to go up, right?

[Anthony Renli]

The Federal Civil penalties for a first offence are between $250 - $2000 per illegal.

Let's say we're talking about Anthony's Construction LLC- I have 10 illegal employees who I hire for $8/hr, don't pay overtime, work over during the construction season(10 hour days/6 days a week) I'm still ahead if I get caught, so long as it's more than a few months into construction season. The maximum civil fine I'll pay is $20,000, so (assuming that I'd have to pay normal workers $14/hr, and pay them overtime) If I can keep this going for at least a month, I'm making a profit hiring illegals.

Second offence and later, the fines do go up, but I might do this for years and not get caught. If I do get caught on my first offence, Anthony's Construction folds, I become an employee of my friend Bob (who was my foreman), Bob's Construction opens up, and it's a new company with a new person doing the hiring.

Federal criminal penalties in place require that they can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that I knew I was hiring illegals...a much higher burden of proof than the civil penalty, so in almost all cases the civil penalty is all that is applied.

If I'm a large company, as CEO/President/General Manager, I throw my HR person under the bus, fire them, pay the penalty, and laugh all the way to the bank, and keep my nose clean at the location of the offences for the next year or so.

First Offence fines need to by upped - by a factor of 10 or so. While I would love to see criminal penalties and jail time for business owners, that isn't likely to happen because the burden of proof is so much higher. We should make it so that it does not make financial sense to hire illegal aliens. When this happens, the vast majority of the illegal immigration problems will disappear.

The bad news about that, our food prices will go up, construction costs will go up, everything will get more expensive.

On a side note - I don't really blame the illegal immigrants themselves. Yes they are breaking the law, but if somebody came up to you and said "Hey, slip into Canada and we'll pay you 5 times your current salary to do the same work you are doing now" a lot of people...especially the 9%+ unemployed in the US would jump all over that.

[Jimi]

Anthony,

"If we seriously want to cut down on illegal immigration, we need to go after the demand side of the supply and demand equation."

What exactly do you think SB 1070 is? This particluar subject takes up majority of the bill. It was unnecessary, because we already have Federal Laws addressing the issue, but the Federal Government refuses to enforce them. Arizona chose to just "mirror" federal law, so that they could give themselves the authority of enforcement.

[Jimi]

Anthony,

"I don't really blame the illegal immigrants themselves."

I know of nobody who does not understand the reality of Mexican men wanting to come to America to make a better life for his family. That's not the problem. The problem is it has to be out in the open, it has to be organized it has to make sense economically. Emotion and Social Enginnering strategies are no excuse for breaking established laws that go back a very long time in reference to the control of Immigration. They were written for a reason!

[larry kurtz]

Russell Pearce, the sponsor of SB 1070 was also a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Tohono O'odham rights as sovereigns to stop a casino in Glendale. This guy is a TEA-stained Republican with ties to white supremacy and the freakin' Minutemen: http://www.roselawgroup.com/blog/wordpress/?p=20976

[duggersd]

Anthony, personally I am glad for the beyond a reasonable doubt part of our laws. I cannot argue with your analysis about the fines. Perhaps on a first offense something like $2000 for the first, $4000 for the second, $8000 for the third and so on? I bet that would get their attention.
I still blame the illegal as well as the employer. They know it is unlawful for them to be here. Just because someone encourages you to break the law does not mean you are not accountable.

[William]

Developing a "Helot Class" of non-citizens is neither compassionate nor, ultimately sustainable. Indeed, warning signs declaring "Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area -- Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates" are only the most visible example of how deranged our current policies, or lack thereof, are damaging not only to our sovereignty, our national security and the safety of our own citizens but a shaming example of how our political failure to control our borders and enforce a coherent immigration policy exploits those who cross our borders illegally.

An underground economy grounded in illegality is always damaging to a society. A country that tacitly allows, or worse encourages, illegal immigration of largely unskilled, uneducated labor from what is essentially a third-world country is undermining the very qualities that distinguish it as a sovereign nation, let alone fails to exhibit qualities that allow a nation to claim "greatness".

[Miranda]

I apologize for the long delay in responding.

Jimi: My attempt here was not to take both sides, but to at least consider each. Both positions come with some rather tragic consequences. Allowing Mexico's criminal culture to spill over into the United States may endanger the lives of many Americans. On the other hand, keeping immigrants out may force them to stay in areas where murder and violent crime are prevalent. I think it is important to know that. As I state above, I am a reluctant supporter of increased border control. I also reject the idea that the Arizona law is racist. But it is not at all hard to sympathize with Bill. If considering both sides of the issue makes me wishy-washy, then I suppose that is what I am. Finally, I do believe in enforcing American laws. However, I do not believe that all men are infallible - not even if they're elected to public office! Therefore, I think it is fair for us to consider whether or not our laws are fair, efficient or good. If they are not, it is fair for us to consider asking out representatives to change them.

Becky: Thank you for your defense.

Anthony's posts make a good deal of sense to me. Even the risk of death does not seem to be able to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border. This may be because those coming across are used to facing danger. It is probably easier and safer to tackle the problem by dealing with businessmen on this side of the border.

William: Bonus points for using the term "Helot!" I agree with part of what you say and disagree with part. First, I agree that a largely illegal underground economy is damaging to a society. I have trouble agreeing with your view of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, however. I think a fundamental part of American culture is the idea that someone who has nothing can work his way up to become something. Think of the writings of Horatio Alger! Or the Statue of Liberty! Or even Elvis!

[William]

Miranda,

In the area of our disagreement, the welfare state we've created eliminates the possibility of an "open borders" policy that allows transient workers to pass back and forth across the borders to take work and return home. While "undocumented workers" may not necessarily qualify legally for some of the welfare programs, there are many aspects of it they are still able to gain access to, whether legally or illegally (example: Emergency Room medical services, public schools). Well meaning, but misguided groups advocate extending welfare benefits to illegal immigrants, which ultimately only stigmatize and exploits them further.

Also, many of the "jobs that American won't do" are the very jobs I did when I was young and first entering the workforce (manual labor, fast-food, lawn service, taxi cab driver, etc), denying many young and/or low income citizens the opportunity to work in entry level and part-time jobs that provide the first steps up the economic ladder.

I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the poor and ambitious who are not American citizens, I am however aware that the country must develop and enforce an immigration policy that is focused on what immigration levels work best for our nation and its citizens, as a whole, while enforcing the security of our borders.

[Miranda]

William: I agree with you, both on the issue of welfare for illegal immigrants and on increased border security. But I do think that it is important for America to remain a land
of opportunity where the uneducated and unskilled can (legally) become educated and skilled.

[William]

Miranda,

Indeed, and those citizens that are most disadvantaged are those whose welfare we must first be concerned about.

America can lead by example in the opportunities it provides its citizens and legal immigrants, but can never have enough resources to act as the welfare state or police force of the world.

[Miranda]

Agreed on all accounts!

[larry kurtz]

white makes right...

[lynn]

Look at what happened when the Huron police chief testified in favor of this bill. He was suspended! Shows quite clearly the influence of the employers in this regard.

[Jimi]

Miranda,

"On the other hand, keeping immigrants out may force them to stay in areas where murder and violent crime are prevalent."

Uh-huh! Because Social Engineering is the responsiblity of every American citizen right?...Got It!

[Miranda]

Jimi: No (and I don't suggest that anywhere in this thread), but thinking about the consequences of our actions certainly is.

[Jimi]

Miranda,

By that logic, The United States should base it's immigration policy based on what's best for the wanting immigrant?