Arizona/Alabama Immigration Laws


 Arizona and Alabama Immigration Laws
 

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - No Problemo
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive


On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed off on Senate Bill 1070, the most strict immigration bill that the country had ever seen at that time. The Bill proposed that all immigrants needed to carry legal documentation that proved they were documented. This was just one of many new immigration enforcement laws, also included were:
  1. Authorizes law enforcement agencies to securely transfer verified undocumented aliens into federal custody.
  2. Prohibits people who are hiring and/or picking up day laborers, and day laborers soliciting work, from impeding traffic.
  3. Prohibits undocumented aliens without work authorization from applying for work, soliciting work in a public place, or performing work in the state.
  4. Authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest an individual without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the individual has committed any public offense that makes him/her removable from the U.S.
On June 9, 2011 Alabama Governor Robert J. Bentley passed HB56, what is now referred to as the nation's strictest immigration law to date, more strict than Arizona's SB1070. This immigration bill makes most offenses felonies. Here are just some of the many laws embedded in HB56:
  1. Section 30 makes it a Class C felony for an “unlawfully present alien” to enter into any “business transaction” with a government agency, such as applying for a license plate, a non-driver identification card, or a business license.
  2. Section 8 further restricts access to education: It prohibits undocumented immigrants from “enroll[ing] in or attend[ing] any public post-secondary education institution in this state” or receiving any educational benefits such as financial aid.
  3. Section 11 makes it unlawful for an “unauthorized alien” to “knowingly apply for work, solicit work,” or “perform work.”
  4. Section 12 requires that, “[u]pon any lawful stop, detention, or arrest” by a law enforcement officer, where “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present,” the officer “shall” verify the person’s immigration status by contacting the federal government.

Similarities Between Federal Immigration Laws and Arizona and Alabama Laws
 Federal Law: 
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1357
§ 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;
Arizona's SB 1070 Law: 
"For any lawful contact 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 where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who 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."

Alabama's HB56 Law: 
Section 12 requires that, “[u]pon any lawful stop, detention, or arrest” by a law enforcement officer, where “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present,” the officer “shall” verify the person’s immigration status by contacting the federal government. This requirement applies even for the most minor offenses, and indeed, even if there is no probable cause to believe a law has been violated at all (e.g., Terry stops). HB 56 does not explain what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that a person is undocumented; this vague formulation is an open invitation to racial profiling. Under § 12, Alabamans stopped by police for any reason will be subjected to
interrogation and extended detention unless they carry one of the privileged identity documents listed in HB 56, which give rise to a “presumption” of citizenship. 

The only major difference between SB 1070 and HB56 in regards to verifying citizenship is that individuals being questioned about their citizenship in Arizona can produce a state driver's license and be released. HB56 states that someone questioned about their citizenship will be detained until the state authorities verify the individual's status with the Federal Government. 

Although both states laws and Federal Law appoint the right to determine the status of an individual who has committed an offense, when both these state laws were passed, the Federal Government sued the states. For Arizona, the Supreme Court passed an injunction on the state law over riding these sections of the law:
  •  The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally. 
  • The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers." 
  • The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States. 
  • The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. There are three parts to that part of the law. Two of them will go into effect, one of them will not.
    The Federal Government was able to make saying that these portions of the law were conflicting with:
    •  14th Amendment’s requirement of equal protection under the law. No person can be treated differently by the law than another, irrespective of their citizenship status.
    • 14th Amendment and 1798 Naturalization Act establishes who is a citizen of the United States. Neither law, nor any other federal law requires any citizen to carry proof of citizenship.
    • 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination and requirement of due process.   
    • 6th Amendment’s right to counsel are the basis of the Miranda law. You don’t have to tell a police officer after being arrested anything without counsel. This is still being debated because some people believe that Miranda Law only applies to U.S. citizens not undocumented workers.
    Conclusion

         

    In conclusion, all the cartoons illustrated these laws both in 2010 and 2011 to be inhumane and racially based. Remember that race is something that we create and by authorities interrogating people about their citizenship based on their physical appearances is racial profiling. I feel that it should be a federal responsibility to enforce the national border not states. I feel that Arizona's and Alabama's immigration laws have been attacked pretty harshly by media but the Federal Immigration Act has rarely been covered by the same media groups. As an Arizona resident I have seen the crippling effects of SB 1070 from brilliant students being deported even though SB1070 has been put on hold, to the Arizona economy shrinking rapidly from undocumented aliens being sent back to Mexico and returning to Mexico for fear of being arrested and separated from their families.
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)