Arizona Legislature Passes Immigration Bill on April 13, 2010

Despite the will of the majority of the nation's voters, for many years the federal government has chosen to avoid effective enforcement our immigration laws. The result has been a steadily increasing inflow of little-educated immigrants who compete with little-educated citizens for jobs and social benefits. This in turn has resulted in political battles at the state and local government level concerning proposed laws designed to counter illegal immigration and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work, live, or obtain public benefits in their jurisdictions. The types of restrictive laws which states and localities can pass is gradually being resolved by challenges in the courts.

To the extent that state immigration-related laws are allowed to take effect, states that are tough on immigration are going to cause a shift in the illegal immigrant population towards those states that are more lenient. Within states the same will be true of localities, as some cities and counties have passed or are considering laws which would negatively impact illegal immigrants.

On the other side of the political spectrum, states and localities may consider laws or administrative rules which would make it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain publicly controlled benefits such as welfare and driver’s licenses. Some localities have gone so far as to declare themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants and these have initiated local laws or policies which would afford some protection for illegal immigrants.

With its long Mexican border, Arizona is on the front lines of illegal immigration-related issues with more people and drugs crossing its border illegally than is the case for any other state. Beyond the problems associated with an influx of poor and poorly educated immigrants, Arizona has become a haven for for drug and immigrant smugglers and many citizens feel powerless to deal with these and other problems that stem from its proximity to Mexico.1a

On April 13, 2010 the Arizona legislature passed a bill (SB 1070) which would make it a violation of state law to be in Arizona without proper documentation to be in the United States. Police would be authorized to stop and verify the status of anyone suspected of being illegally in the United States and foreign nationals would be required to carry proof of legal residency as federal law requires. Some state legislators had misgivings about parts of the bill but voted for it anyway out of frustration at the absence of effective federal efforts to deal with the immigration problem.

The bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23 hours after the bill was denounced by President Obama as "misguided" and threatening to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Governor Brewer commented that the Arizona law comes after "decades of inaction and misguided policy [on the federal level] have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."1b It is a certainty that there will be court challenges to the new Arizona law.

The Arizona bill was also demonized by pro-immigrant groups and Cardinal Mahony, head of Los Angeles’ Catholic archdiocese and an outspoken supporter of immigrant rights. The cardinal likened the bill to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques” that compelled people to turn each other in.2a It is estimated his archdiocese is nearly 70% Latino.3a

On April 26, the results of a Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted on April 22 and April 23 were released showing that 70% of Arizonans favored their new law, while 60% of a nationwide survey favor such a law for their own areas. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted between April 28 and May 2, 51% of the resondents said the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach and 9% said that it did not go far enough.3b

On April 30 Governor Brewer signed a follow-on bill to SB 1070 that tried to clarify the original language to send a stronger message that racial profiling will not be tolerated. The revision bill states that immigration status questions by police must follow an officer's stopping, detaining, or arresting a person suspected of violating some other law. The bill also specifies that when police stop, detain, or arrest they cannot procede to the immigration status question using race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor.3c

Pertinent Details of SB1070 as noted in a press release dated April 29, 2010 of the Center for Immigration Studies

• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
o A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
o A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
o A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13

Additional Background on Illegal Immigration in Arizona from the Center for Immigration Studies press release

• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9

Blog continued

In general there has been increasing legislative activity at the state and local level with thousands of immigration bills being introduced in all 50 states. An immigration specialist of the National Conference of State Legislatures commented: “This is now a 50-state issue. There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the local level now that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility.”4a

Of the recent actions by state legislatures, Georgia’s is one of the tougher ones. Its law, which took effect on July 1, 2007, includes the following features: a) Georgia employers are required to use a federal data base to verify that their workers are legal, b) recipients of state benefits must prove that they are in the country legally, c) jailers must inform federal authorities if anyone incarcerated is in the country illegally, and d) a new criminal offense, human trafficking, was added to the books to prosecute those who bring in groups of illegal immigrants. In late 2007, another restrictive state law went into effect in Oklahoma. As of January 1, 2008 still another restrictive state law was to go into effect in Arizona which among other features would penalize employers of illegal immigrants.

Beyond the current activity in state legislatures, there have been two stand-out propositions that were voted on in state-wide balloting in recent years – Proposition 187 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona. Both are noteworthy as being indicative of voter sentiment regarding illegal immigration.

Proposition 187 was on the California ballot in November 1994 as a result of a citizen initiated petition. It was supported by Republican Governor Pete Wilson who was reelected in the same election and who used its embrace to climb from an earlier 23 percentage point deficit in public opinion polls to a 15 percent point victory on election day.5a Exit polls showed that the number one reason people voted for Governor Wilson was that he would be tough on illegal immigration.6a A significant feature of Proposition 187 was the barring of the public education of children who were illegal immigrants, a challenge to the Plyler v. Doe U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1982. It also denied other public benefits, excepting emergency medical treatment, unless the applicant could prove a legal right to reside in the United States. In addition it called on law enforcement agents who suspected a person arrested was in violation of immigration laws to check further and if evidence was found of immigration illegality they were to report that to the attorney general of California and to the INS. “Flawed as it was in design, Prop. 187 was increasingly seen by voters as the only option available to Californians to ‘send a signal’ that they were angry at open borders.…”7a Proposition 187 passed by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent. Court challenges prevented its implementation and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was not undertaken by the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 1998 (Governor Wilson was barred from running for a third term in 1998) sealing the fate of most of the sections of the Proposition. “Most Hispanic voters favored the measure in early polling, though only 31 percent voted for it after a long campaign in which Hispanic political leaders branded it as ‘anti-Hispanic.’ ”8a

Proposition 200 appeared on the Arizona ballot in November 2004. It requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may vote or apply for public benefits. Despite opposition from Republican U.S. Senators McCain and Kyle, and Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Republican and Democratic parties, it was approved with 56 percent of the vote. Exit polls found that 47 per cent of Latino voters supported the measure.9a

Footnotes to the CIS press release followed by footnotes to this blog

1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

2 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.

4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.

7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.


1a A sidelight of the immigrant crime picture is contained in Jacques Billeaud (Associated Press), “Smuggler kidnappings sneak across the border,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), January 12, 2008. This article states that on the American side of the border, drug and immigrant smugglers “and their family members are being kidnapped by fellow criminals and held for six-figure ransoms,” sometimes leading to killings. “Phoenix had more than 340 reported such kidnappings last year, but police said the real number is much higher because many cases go unreported. The San Diego area has also seen a rise in kidnappings. . . .” The article goes on to note that “kidnappings are common in Mexico. . . .”

1b The quotations from President Obama and Governor Brewer come from Luara Meckler and Miriam Jordan, "Clash on Immigration Law," Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2010.


2a Teresa Watanabe, “Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2010.

3a Ibid.

3b As reported in an article below the heading Los Angeles in the Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 4, 2010.

3c Hugh Holub, "Arizona state legislature runs for cover on SB 1070," Tucson Independent Examiner, April 30, 2010. It appeared that this revision bill received little or no coverage in the mainstream media.

4a Walter F. Roche Jr. (Los Angeles Times), “States take lead on immigration law.”

5a Dan Walters, “Schwarzenegger, like Wilson, Could Play the Immigration Card,” Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2006.

6a Paul Vitello, “As Illegal Workers Hit the Suburbs, Politicians Scramble to Respond,” New York Times, October 6, 2005.

7a Otis L. Graham Jr., Unguarded Gates (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 155.

8a Ibid., 155.

9a Richard Marosi, “The Nation; Arizona Stirs up Immigration Stew,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2004.

Letter to the editor -- Wall Street Journal

Below is a letter to the editor of the Journal submitted on April 13, 2010. It was published in the April 20 Journal.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Reich in his editorial “The Jobs Picture Still Looks Bleak” (April 12) makes no mention of the effect of legal and illegal immigration on our unemployment numbers. Most of our legal and illegal immigrants are not well-educated and therefore end up competing for low-level jobs with our lower income citizens who also typically have limited education.

Our immigration is no doubt a contributing factor to the very high unemployment rate cited by Mr. Reich for those with only high school diplomas or less. But politically correct academics such as Mr. Reich rarely mention immigration’s impact on our nation’s unemployment picture.

Federal Agents Make Arrests of Immigration Smugglers (Dubbed Operation In Plain Sight)

These raids, according to information released by the government about April 16, resulted in the arrest of 47 alleged leaders (mostly small operators) of a loosely connected human-smuggling chain dealing with only illegal immigrants from Mexico. In fact these human smugglers are like hydras and drug smugglers, you arrest some and others quickly fill the void. Like drug smuggling, the problem will continue unabated as long as there is a strong demand for the smuggler's services. Nevertheless, actions which lead to a reduction in immigrant smuggler activity, no matter how temporary, or which lead to an increase in the fee for smuggler services are of some benefit in the fight against illegal immigration.

At the same time, it should be noted that the Obama administration has done nothing to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. In fact, it has gone in the other direction and is actively encouraging illegal immigration by completely decriminalizing living and working in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant. Today, the only illegal immigrants living here who are deported are ones who have been convicted of significant crimes here. The message to illegal immigrants is clear: if you can somehow get past the border area, you can stay and enjoy all the benefits of living here as long as you do not become a major criminal. As it is, at least half of our illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. legally (mostly at airports) from all over the world as visitors with valid visas and passports whose visitation time limits are ignored. And while being informally permitted to live and work here illegally, many immigrant couples have children here who are automatically legal citizens of the U.S. under our current law, thereby making their families eligible for a variety of welfare programs for low income citizens.

Like the raids on employers of illegal immigrants (see blog dated July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy") these one-time raids on smugglers are in large part politically motivated, trying to make it appear that the Obama administration is trying to do something about illegal immigration when in fact the opposite is true, they are more in favor of unskilled and little-educated illegal immigration than even the misguided W. For some rationale for the Obama immigration policy, which hurts our own poor who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and social benefits, see blog of October 2, 2009 entitled "The Elephants in the Democrats Back Room." In addition, Obama would like to appear tough on immigration to improve his chances of getting Congress to pass immigration legislation this year which contains some form of amnesty for most illegal immigrants.