Racism, by its nature, stems from ignorance. For that reason there is a touch of bitter irony when opponents of Arizona’s law SB 1070 call it, out of ignorance, racist. I plan on shedding light on the merits of Arizona’s law and show why it is not the law many perceive. It retains the fundamental basis of our American freedom.
Before I continue, I urge anyone that has not already, to go and read the law. Please, it is very short, and will help you truly understand the situation. Secondly, I want to be clear that we are only talking about SB 1070 as part of the current immigration laws. This isn’t a debate on immigration policies, whether you believe we should build fences or have open borders, or how much you think illegal immigrants help or hurt this country. Those are issues for another day. This is simply about the law as it relates to current federal policies and its outspoken critics.
Most critics argue that the law will unfairly target innocent Hispanics. Contrary to popular belief, however, police officers cannot simply walk up to “brown-colored” people, ask for identification and then whisk them off to prison in the Arizona dragnet. An officer must first stop a suspect for an unrelated offense before they can ask for identification. The original bill used the words lawful contact, an ambiguous term, but the Arizona Legislation put an end to the confusion. They edited the sentence to read “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”
No longer can the bill’s opponents claim that innocent bystanders will be deported for no reason at all. For SB 1070 to have any “victims” one must first break an unrelated American law, which could range from traffic violation to drug possession to assault, and then fail to produce proper identification.
What qualifies as proper identification? We have all heard of the tremendous humiliation, pain and difficulty that legal immigrants will face as they now have to carry all sorts of identification with them: their passport, visa, birth certificate, social security card. I find these concerns to be over-inflated.
A suspect only needs to produce one state issued document. Among the numerous qualifying documents are: Driving license, Green card, Social Security Card, Visa, Passport, Birth Certificate, etc. All these items, with the exception of a birth certificate or passport, can easily fit in a standard wallet. Suddenly the laborious effort of having your papers is as simple as putting a card in your wallet. Regardless of the law, many people carry these with them at all times anyways, and it’s not uncommon for countries to require you to have identification. The Netherlands insists on foreign visitors always having their passports on hand. Does this mean that the Dutch are oppressive and racist? Brown requires us to have our ID’s on us to enter buildings, should organize a protest?
The next common complaint is that this law over steps its bounds and walks into federal territory. A quick reading of the Arizona law will dispel this notion. It mentions numerous times that the officer shall only go as far as federal law allows and that police should turn over any detained to federal authorities. Regardless of this law, the Supreme Court has upheld numerous times that even with just reasonable suspicion the officer has the right to ask for the suspect to identify himself or herself, and in cases of probable cause of a crime the officer may arrest. No matter how you paint it, illegal immigrants have all committed a crime against the United States. Furthermore, visiting constitutional law proffesor at Brown University, Stephen Calabresi, says that the ability to control borders is not just a fedral power. Much like the power to impose an income tax, the power to control borders has traditionally been shared between the state and federal government. Calabresi stated that he believes that, if brought to federal court, SB1070 will be upheld.
SB1070 also tries its best to protect the innocent by saying, “a law enforcement official… may not solely consider race, color, or national origin.” It goes on to say that the state will punish officers for making arrests based on race, regardless of whether or not the suspect was actually illegal. Officers must rely on things such as poor English, fear of police, among other indicators before they can even ask for identification. The simple truth is that Arizona went to great length to make sure racism did not play a role in its fight against illegal immigration.
Even more laughable is Mexico calling the law racist. Mexico has its own troubles with its southern border, and has some of the stringiest immigration laws. Mexico requires – along with other standards – that every immigrant shows that will be an economic asset to Mexico and they will not burden the country. Often they require immigrants to be debt-free and possess cash reserves.
Every country has the right to control its immigration and Arizona is simply acting within the boundaries set by the federal government. Only if one assumes – based on stereotypes and unfounded beliefs – that officers are bigots who unfairly target Hispanics, can they call SB1070 racist.
In the end, SB1070 will have very little affect on controlling immigration. Instead it will be used as a tactic for Democrats to attempt to isolate Hispanic voters and secure the Hispanic vote for years to come.
Photo courtesy of www.jennybowen.com
I am trying to chase down the origin of the photo used on the front page. Not the one on the same page as the opinion piece, the one with a sign listing healthcare and whatnot in black then threatening to shoot Arizona police in red. Why use this photo on the lead-in and then a completely different one on the article header? This seems like a “bait-and-switch”.
Where did the photo on the front page come from? Has anyone confirmed it’s origin?
Reply
The photo on the front page has been around the internet for a while and I got permission to use it not by the original photographer, so it is hard to find to origins of it. The picture in the article was taken by Jenny Bowen.
As for the bait and switch. I’m not all too savvy with wordpress but this theme allowed for a thumbnail and a main article picture. Being as Jenny Bowen’s picture was of better quality i decided to use that as the bigger picture. The two pictures are used to contrast how each side feels about the issue and to capture the raw emotions. As you can see the article does not argue for or against either one, it simply states to validity and genuine civility of the Arizona law which is unfairly vilified. I apologize if you felt that you it was a bait and switch. But thank you for reading.
Ryan Fleming
Reply
So in other words you have no journalistic integrity whatsoever? You use an inflammatory picture as your lead in without even bothering to confirm if the picture is real or just someone’s creative edit? And if you are willing to disregard both intellectual property rights by not finding the photographer and honest representations of reality by not confirming if the photo is genuine, just why should anyone trust your opinion? Furthermore, if this is an example of Brown University’s editorial oversight how can I as a reader now trust anything Brown University itself publishes on the immigration issue?
Don’t misunderstand me. I fully support S.B. 1070. It is because I support the right of Arizona and other states to determine their own laws that I object so strongly to efforts to inflame emotions surrounding the status of illegal immigrants. One cannot present a balanced opinion by opening with a strawman photo. And on a university website no less! Is this exemplary of the ethics being taught at Brown University?
Reply
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I must say your claims are unfounded.
The way the photo was found was through the site deviantart.com which is a site that allows artists to post their work. The particular artist that I found this work from informed me that he had been given the photo with the instructions to pass it around and he gave me permission to use it, so I don’t feel the intellectual property rights were violated.
Now as for whether or not it is accurate, you’re right, I can’t be sure if it ever happened or if it is simply an edited photo. But that doesn’t matter. The photo never claims to have actually occurred and I intended to use it for it’s artistic purposes any way, not reality. Similarly the photo by Jenny Bowen may very well be staged, but it doesn’t matter. I felt each photo captures the raw argument at the heart of both sides.
Now whether it is inflammatory is a matter of personal opinion. I think both photos may over simplify their respective arguments, but that’s why there is an article to go with it. I certainly never intended the man in the photo to look like a bigot, but you may have seen it otherwise.
As for the claim that it is a strawman photo; it clearly isn’t once you read the photo. For it to be a strawman I would have had to argue against the simplified claims made by the photo (i.e. attack the strawman), but as you can see I did no such thing and attacked the bigger issue head on.
And it should also be noted that we do not represent the views of Brown University, so whatever Brown publishes has no effect on what the Spectator publishes and vice versa. And this is not a university website whatsoever. We take pride in the fact that we are not controlled by the university in any way.
I apologize if the pictures left a sour taste in your mouth, but I encourage you to read other articles posted on the site and view the article in its original context.
http://issuu.com/spectator/docs/finalcopy?viewMode=magazine (copy and paste it)
Best,
Ryan
Reply
Your inclusion of a digitally altered, outlandish photo of a protester holding a sign reading “Give us free health care, jobs … we will shoot more police in Arizona until we get free!” is shameful and stupid. This is what the Spectator considers political discourse? Crudely doctored photos put out by the crazies at Alex Jones’s Infowars and FreeRepublic?
Of course it’s been doctored. Reading the words on the sign tests the limits of any rational person’s credulity. Any graphic designer will point to the artifacts of retouching evident around the edges of the pasted text, which has been simply rotated, pasted, and smudged into the original image.
Perhaps you fancy yourself a conservative provocateur, and this is all part of that effort. Which is fine, but don’t go out claiming that you can’t be sure if the photo is real.
As for your article, I did find it to be a clear and concise argument. However, my main disagreement with your opinion stems from this statement, towards the end: “Only if one assumes … that officers are bigots who unfairly target Hispanics, can they call SB1070 racist.”
And there begins our disagreement. I believe it is more practical and honest to assume that it’s very likely that some fraction of Arizona’s police officers possess sufficient racial bigotry to unfairly target Hispanics. The statistical outcomes of these unfair targeting practices has received much study, and I encourage you to look into them.
Reply
hey, please approve my comment! (i accidentally submitted it twice, the last one is the finished one.) thanks!
Reply
Mr. Fleming must not know the history or procedures of Arizona law enforcement. People in Arizona are wary of SB 1070 because of past abuse. In a recent example, the City of Chandler, Arizona rounded up hundreds of people, including dozens of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens, then deported them to Mexico, alledgedly to clear out a neighborhood in order to build condos. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_Roundup for more information. Most major law enforcement agencies in Arizona already check for immigration status of arrestees. SB 1070 will extend that to traffic stops, people being evicted, material witnesses, domestic disputes and others that police have a right to detain. In the ultimate “Catch-22″ situation, Natural Born Citizens are usually detained the longest and have the most difficulty proving that they are legally in the United States. Unlike what was written in the article, Birth Certificates and Social Security Cards are not acceptable, because they do not have photos. A valid driver’s license is usually accepted, but can be challenged. A referal is made to ICE, where there is another problem. For legal immigrants, ICE has a record and can verify status. ICE does not keep records of citizens!! This leads to US citizens being detained for 3-4 weeks while ICE does a manual investigation of the person’s status. This is enough of a civil rights problem when Police have probable cause to suspect that a person has committed a serious crime. SB 1070 will extend this penalty to people who are witnesses, being evicted or only being accused of minor traffic violations.
Reply
In light of these comments I’m curious to hear your thoughts, Ryan. You seem like a reasonable person and there is mounting evidence to contradict your assertion that claims of racism are “laughable,” or that “the simple truth is that Arizona went to great length to make sure racism did not play a role in its fight against illegal immigration.”
Your reading of the law clearly makes assumptions on motives and scenarios that simply do not agree with the facts on the ground. Believing SB1070 is racist is not caused by “stereotypes and unfounded beliefs” but by an honest, rational understanding of the situation in Arizona.
Reply
Ryan reply on May 4th, 2011 11:17 pm:
Howard’s comments are anecdotal so I don’t know how true they are. The law itself doesn’t hold a racial bias. Whether or not certain police officers do is not certain, but it is unfair to assume they do. Also, they claim that natural citizens are going to be detained for weeks seems like a stretch. Assuming one doesn’t have any identification on them, and there is reason to believe that they are illegal, and they are arrested. Would it really take 3-4 weeks for one of you family members or a friend to bring a birth certificate or driver’s license? As a citizen of the United State there are very rare cases when I get stopped by law enforcement, and in every case I have a license on me. Stick it in your wallet, and problem solved, you have it everywhere you go.
Also, on the Chandler Round-up. First it was described as “the only major ethnic profiling incident actually related to immigration”. So there we go, that happened over 14 years ago, and since not much else. Also, only 20 people were arrested despite being of legal status. It does not say any were deported, but rather all were released. So unless Howard can back up his claim with another source, it is completely unverified. Also, the Chandler Mayor faced repercussions so I don’t think that anyone will be ordering anything similar again (and in 14 years they haven’t).
As for the birth certificates, the law states that ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION qualifies, so I assume that birth certificate applies. It doesn’t mention picture ID anywhere, but I can see where there might be some contention there.
Ryan
Reply
Howard’s comments are anecdotal so I don’t know how true they are. The law itself doesn’t hold a racial bias. Whether or not certain police officers do is not certain, but it is unfair to assume they do. Also, they claim that natural citizens are going to be detained for weeks seems like a stretch. Assuming one doesn’t have any identification on them, and there is reason to believe that they are illegal, and they are arrested. Would it really take 3-4 weeks for one of you family members or a friend to bring a birth certificate or driver’s license? As a citizen of the United State there are very rare cases when I get stopped by law enforcement, and in every case I have a license on me. Stick it in your wallet, and problem solved, you have it everywhere you go.
+1
Reply
Very great site, thanks
Reply