What does the Arizona SB 1070 do?

Answer 1

In April of 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070 ("Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe

Neighborhoods Act"), which at the time of its passage, was said to be the broadest and

strictest immigration measure in the country. The law makes it a crime for any

noncitizen to fail to carry their alien registration documents, and it also requires state

and local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they

reasonably suspects are in the country illegally (even without a warrant).

According to Arizona's statement of legislative intent, SB 1070 was envisioned to

establish "attrition through enforcement"-a strategy to make living life as an

undocumented alien in the United States to become sufficiently difficult enough to

drive the unauthorized population out of the country-as its official state-wide public

policy.

The law was to take effect on July 29, 2010, but the U.S. Department of Justice filed

suit to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of several sections of SB 1070, and a federal

district court granted a temporary injunction on the 11th hour. Arizona appealed, and in

April of 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's

decision. The Supreme Court granted Arizona's petition on December 9, 2011, and

began hearing oral arguments in April 25, 2012.

Only a few provisions in SB 1070 will be subjected to the Court's scrutiny for whether

they unconstitutionally usurp the federal government's authority to regulate

immigration law and enforcement. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the

U.S. Constitution, whenever Congress creates a regulatory scheme through legislation,

state laws that conflict with Federal Laws will be preempted ("conflict preemption").

The Supremacy Clause has empowered the federal government to explicitly "preempt"

a particular area over which it has authority, thereby depriving states the authority to

create or enforce their own laws in that same area. However, according to Kris Kobach,

the author of SB 1070, "[b]ecause S.B. 1070 proscribes precisely the same conduct

that is prohibited by federal law, Arizona law and federal law are in perfect harmony.

Conflict pre-emption cannot occur." The validity of his rationale will soon be tested

under the national spotlight in the upcoming hearing.

One of the four challenged provisions is Section 2(B), commonly referred to as the

"show me your papers" section, which requires Arizona law enforcement officials to

verify the immigration status of any person stopped, arrested, or detained under state

or local law if the official has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is present in the

country unlawfully. Section 3 makes it a crime to violate federal law requiring certain

aliens to apply for and maintain federal registration papers. Violations of this provision

are punishable by up to twenty days imprisonment for a first offense and thirty days

imprisonment for subsequent violations. Section 5(C) makes it a state crime for an

unauthorized immigrants to apply or engage in work as an employee or independent

contractor. Lastly, section 6 allows state police officers to make a warrantless arrest of

any person whom they find "probable cause" to believe has committed a crime that

makes them removable form the United States.

Proponents of the bill argue that federal government has failed to adequately enforce

immigration law and that SB 1070 is a necessary measure to help reduce crime, drug

trafficking, create a safer neighborhood, and more jobs for Americans. On the other

hand, opponents have attacked the bill as having legalized racial profiling and opening

the door to harassment against the Latino community regardless of their immigrant

status.

More than half of the country proposed similar bills but only five states ultimately

passed copycat bills, including Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina.

The majority of those that contemplated similar anti-immigration legislation,

presumably declined to take any action after observing not only the immediate adverse

fiscal impacts, but the mounting legal challenges that have halted the laws from being

fully implemented signals that any attempt to propose such a law would be

inconsequential.