Arizona and Immigration – Part 3: A Brief Reflection

Two days ago, I began a critical examination concerning Arizona’s new and controversial immigration law. On the first day, I examined both the Arizona House and Senate versions of the legislation. Yesterday, I considered the position and possible motivations of the state’s governor Jan Brewer. Today, I had originally planned to examine the manner in which race factors into this debate; however, I need to take a moment to briefly reflect and collect my thoughts.

As a student of anthropology, I have been interested in the notion of “the other” and how “otherness” is determined. “The other” is usually a subjected population because they lack agency within a certain context to assert their humanity as defined by the dominant society. In the United States, “otherness” is associated with political power. At one time or another, all immigrant groups entering America (with the possible exception of Western Europeans), have been “the other” – African slaves, Eastern Europeans, Asians, and previous Latino immigrants each experienced discrimination from the majority population as a result of their racial and cultural differences from whites. Gradually, each of these groups attained political power and became increasingly acknowledged as Americans: I believe that this process began in earnest during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s/1960s and was somewhat realized with the election of President Barack Obama. Yet, this is an ongoing process as undocumented persons are currently “the subjected other.”

Here’s the thing: even before considering race (which I will do tomorrow), there exist key cultural differences between the two primary groups of stakeholders in this debate. One could make key distinctions between the undocumented population and the majority of Arizonians. Not only must issue of race be considered in this debate, but also the notion of “the nation” as defined by Benedict Anderson – “an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”. In the context of Anderson’s definition, I view the Arizona legislation and the state’s subsequent actions as a “nation-building,” or rather “nation-enforcing” project. The majority of Arizonians are imagining the political community of Arizona, as being limited to American citizens and the legislation in question is the mechanism that asserts the state’s legitimated sovereign right to engage in this process. I have little doubt that this is what’s going on here; the question on the table is, if it’s right?

Arizona and Immigration – Part 2: Taking a closer look at Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer

This is the second part of my critical examination concerning Arizona’s controversial immigration legislation. Yesterday, I began this process by taking a look at the law itself in order to determine the facts of the matter according to the written legislation. Today, I am going to examine the position of one of the process’ primary stakeholders - that of Arizona’s Republican Governor: Jan Brewer.

Governor Brewer came into office via succession. When the state’s former governor, Janet Napolitano became President’s Obama Secretary of Homeland Security in January 2009, Arizona’s then Secretary of State, Jan Brewer was first in line to succeed her predecessor. Currently, Governor Brewer is running for reelection (or election depending on your viewpoint), which is an extremely important consideration when examining her support for the immigration legislation in question. This past Sunday while watching NBC’s Meet the Press, I noticed a poll that stated two-thirds of whites (in the United States) supported Arizona’s new immigration law. In comparison, only one-third of minorities supported the bill. This information is significant and relevant because according to the 2008 voter-registration statistics, 2,150,000 of Arizona’s 2,874,000 registered voters are white – in an election year, Governor Brewer is pushing for these votes.

Previously, Governor Brewer has described the protection of Arizona’s borders as the federal government’s “obligation and moral responsibility.” She has accused President Obama of failing to take the necessary measures to secure the U.S. – Mexican border in relation to Arizona, thus the explaining the need for the legislation. Taking a step back, the aforementioned, featured words of “moral responsibility” invoke an inherent moral judgment. It seems as though the governor is taking the position that U.S. citizens deserve priority over all other persons in regards to access to U.S. spaces. In a statement released following the bill’s passage, Governor Brewer said the following:

“There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.”

In the same statement, she also had the following things to say concerning the bill’s possible racial implications:

“Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.”

“I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona.”

“Because I feel so strongly on this subject, I worked for weeks with legislators to amend SB 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protections.”

That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from “‘solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section…’”

Furthermore, Governor Brewer instituted a training program in order to help Arizona law enforcement properly enforce the law:

“Words in a law book are of no use if our police officers are not properly trained on the provisions of SB 1070, including its civil rights provisions.”

“Today I am issuing an executive order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board – AZPOST -- to develop training to appropriately implement SB 1070.”

As evidenced by her statement, Governor Brewer is dedicated to the protection and security of Arizona’s border, but not at the expense of U.S. citizens’ civil rights. In theory, this law is just and should work; however, in reality, there are two factors that are influencing the law: politics and race. First, make no mistake that this legislation is entangled within a political struggle between liberals and conservatives. As cited in a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 82% of Republicans are in support of the bill compared to only 45% of Democrats. Secondly, race – the issue W.E.B. DuBois nominated as “the problem of the 20^th century” – takes center stage in this conflict. There is little question that this legislation disportionately affects individuals of Latino and Hispanic descent, particularly Mexican-Americans, hence the reason why the law is being called racist. Tomorrow, I’m going to take a closer look at the role of race in this debate, but I’m going to end tonight’s critical exercise with this thought:

Does Governor Brewer need the Hispanic vote?

Perhaps not…

Arizona and Immigration – Part 1: Examining the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162

Recently, there has been much debate concerning Arizona’s controversial immigration law. President Obama has called the law “poorly conceived” and the Phoenix Suns have donned their “Los Suns” jerseys in protest against the bill. On the other side, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has called on the President to “do [his] job” and “secure our borders.” Admittedly, when I first became aware of the discourse surrounding this debate, I automatically took the liberal side. I stand for social justice and believed that the law inherently went against my principles; however, I did not examine this situation critically. Initially, I thought that the law was inherently racist because it discriminates against individuals of Hispanic and Latino origin – yet I did not read the law. Over the next few days, I would like to engage in a critical examination of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 in order to gain a more complete understanding of law’s implications and its effects on various stakeholders. Today, I’m going to start off, by just identifying some key points in the law:

Section 1. Intent

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.

E. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:

1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Alright here are the key points that I identified:

1. The purpose of the law is to enable Arizona to better enforce already existing federal border guidelines.

2. A suspected undocumented immigrant may only be stopped in “a lawful stop, arrest, or detention” and be asked his or her immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. Proof of residence includes the following: either working or non-working valid Arizona driver’s license or Tribal identification

3. Once an individual is set to be deported, his or her immigration status must be confirmed by a federal officer.

These are the words written in the law and a good launching point. Currently, I have not formulated any opinions, except for the following (which may be considered an educated guess): stakeholders who were at risk for being targeted as a result of the law – lawful U.S. residents or not – probably were not at the table when the law was being written and amended. Tomorrow, I’m going to take a look at where Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer stands.