Insights on Immigration: Arizona's SB 1070 effect
U-T San Diego’s Insights on Immigration, a panel of experts who regularly explore timely and often provocative issues, was created to better explore the many facets of immigration and provide more perspectives for readers.
To suggest a topic or a question email Elizabeth Aguilera
Question: If the Supreme Court upholds SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law, would it affect California and other states?
David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at USD
The Supreme Court’s ruling will likely have implications for all states.
The court’s increasingly conservative leanings reflect a strong probability it will uphold Arizona Senate Bill 1070, setting a precedent granting states discretion to establish immigration laws to promote “attrition through enforcement.”
Unless the federal government steps in to reform immigration policy, other states will probably follow suite. How many will do so remains unclear, since many businesses depend heavily on lax immigration enforcement to sustain a cheap labor pool. For now, four other states (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah) have established laws criminalizing immigration violations.
Proponents of this approach wrongly believe that such laws (not the economy or Mexico’s declining birthrates) explain the slowing of Mexican immigration. Proponents often fail to mention that the “show me your papers” states have experienced unexpected consequences, including boycotts and labor shortfalls.
Still, whatever the Supreme Court’s decision, it will surely influence future state experimentation on immigration and other policies (including drugs).
Peter Nunez, former U.S. attorney in San Diego
California is a lost cause, but it should encourage other states to follow suit, in light of the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws. California has done more to promote and encourage illegal immigration, protect those here illegally, interfere with feeble attempts by federal authorities to enforce laws, and to undermine the rule of law than any other state.
Recent studies indicate vigorous enforcement at the state level can contribute to reducing the magnet that attracts illegal immigration, and can promote the departure of those here illegally.
A vigorous state response might finally convince Congress to focus on true “comprehensive” reform, not just reforms championed by open border advocates. “Comprehensive” means much more than amnesty and guest workers; it means mandatory E-Verify for current employees, continued border enforcement, mandatory cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement, prohibitions on sanctuary and policies that encourage illegal immigration, elimination of taxpayer supported benefits, and a rewrite of current legal immigration laws.
Ruben Barrales, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce President, CEO
A Supreme Court ruling upholding Arizona’s SB 1070 will affect California and other states. It would serve to embolden similar legislative efforts. These efforts will surely lead to heated and divisive political debates over the issues of immigration, race, and the role of local law enforcement in implementing federal immigration laws.
Legislation modeled after SB 1070 would likely be proposed in a number of states. These efforts have little chance of being implemented through the legislative and executive process in the state capitals of most other western states such as California, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, but some have, and will, pass in other -- primarily southern -- states.
California’s initiative system may see a SB 1070-type effort, but its outcome would be questionable if it were to contain some of the same provisions that are seen as detrimental to job growth, a burden on business investment, and a negative economic impact on the state.
Lilia Velasquez, immigration attorney and adjunct professor of law
Six known states await the decision, before possibly moving forward with their versions of immigration enforcement laws.
Allowing local police to verify immigration status is the most controversial part of Arizona’s law. Undoubtedly, this would lead to massive civil rights violations not just of undocumented immigrants, but of lawful residents and U.S. citizens because of skin color, type of clothing or accent. Arizona cannot impart its own justice, a known bias against immigrants, because it dislikes how the federal government operates. It is essential to maintain uniform policy nationwide and avoid a “patchwork” of laws.
Arizona’s law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. It conflicts with rights immigrants have under current laws. For example, undocumented victims of domestic violence are entitled to legalize if they cooperate in the prosecution. However, in Arizona victims would be convicted for being in the country illegally rather than protected. Federal courts decided Arizona’s SB1070 is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court should follow suit.