{"id":1584,"date":"2012-09-21T20:06:09","date_gmt":"2012-09-22T00:06:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hlpr\/?p=1584"},"modified":"2015-10-02T15:22:31","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T15:22:31","slug":"papers-please-provision-comes-into-effect-in-arizona","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/2012\/09\/21\/papers-please-provision-comes-into-effect-in-arizona\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPapers, Please\u201d Provision Comes into Effect in Arizona"},"content":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Sushila Rao<\/p>\n

<\/em>Police in Arizona\u2014the\u00a0busiest point in the country for illegal entry<\/a>\u2014can now begin conducting immigration status checks of any person stopped for any reason and suspected of being in the country illegally, after a federal judge lifted an injunction against the controversial provision of\u00a0Arizona Senate Bill 1070\u00a0<\/a>mandating such checks.<\/p>\n

The precise text of the bitterly divisive measure, Section 2B, reads as follows: \u201cFor any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of [Arizona] 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. The person\u2019s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to \u00a0United States Code section 1373(c).\u201d
\n
\nTo its proponents, this requirement constitutes the crux or\u00a0the \u201cheart\u201d of the law,<\/a>\u00a0as it is the most \u201ceffective\u201d way to\u00a0ensure rigorous implementation<\/a>. This is premised on the arguably \u201ccost-effective\u201d nature of the\u00a0\u201cattrition through enforcement strategy\u201d<\/a>\u00a0to curb illegal immigration.<\/p>\n

However, the provision also portends the danger of grave civil rights abuses.\u00a0 Civil and immigrant rights groups denounce the law for\u00a0\u201cinviting racial profiling\u00a0<\/a>against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee\u201d of the Fourteenth Amendment. The danger is self-evident, so much so that it perhaps even rises\u00a0to the level of being an instance of\u00a0conscious racial hostility and\u00a0discriminatory intent\u00a0<\/a>on the part of Arizona\u2019s legislature.\u00a0 For some, it is a throwback to the days of the infamous\u00a0Chandler Round-up<\/a>:\u00a0\u00a0over five days in July 1997, police officers on bicycles patrolled the city of Chandler, Arizona asking \u201csuspected\u201d Hispanic people to provide proof of citizenship, and arresting those who could not.<\/p>\n

Supporters point out that the original Senate Bill 1070 was promptly modified by House Bill 2162, with the amended text stating that \u201cprosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin.\u201d The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a \u201clawful stop, detention, or arrest\u201d.\u00a0 Yet the widespread incidence of racial profiling of Latinos, Asian-Americans and others presumed to be \u201cforeign\u201d based on their appearance and\/or accent renders such changes only mildly ameliorative, if at all.<\/p>\n

In the interim, Arizonan civil rights organizations are attempting to help undocumented immigrants cope with the new realities of living in Arizona, by educating them about their rights and preparing them for routine interactions with police, such as at traffic stops. \u00a0Most crucially, they must counter the prevalent misconception that undocumented individuals cannot claim rights protection. Themain thrust of the message<\/a>: remain silent and ask for an attorney.\u00a0 A parallel civil disobedience-esque effort is also underway\u00a0to urge people\u00a0not to cooperate with immigration enforcement\u00a0 efforts<\/a>\u2014even if they\u2019re in the country legally.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Bolton\u2014who refused to stay the enforcement of this provision on Tuesday\u2014had reasoned that\u00a0the law\u2019s opponents were merely speculating on the possibilities of racial profiling. \u00a0The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering a request to halt the\u00a0 provision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Sushila Rao Police in Arizona\u2014the\u00a0busiest point in the country for illegal entry\u2014can now begin conducting immigration status checks of any […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQka-py","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}