A Young Scholar’s View of Arizona Immigration Law SB1070
By Christopher Gabriel Ared Arce
The Arizona Immigration Law, also known as SB1070, has two sides, that of the proponents and the opponents. I present both sides, but I focus on why the law is unconstitutional.
Many proponents, such as many of the citizens of the State of Arizona, support SB1070, and believe it is constitutional. They believe SB1070 is a step in the right direction in Immigration Policies. Many proponents believe that because the Federal government has “refused” to take action in what is occurring on the borderline of Arizona and Mexico, the Arizona State Government has to assume responsibility and take action. A proponent could argue, that 25% of crime has dropped due to a drop in the number of Illegal Immigrants.
Proponents also argue that Article 1, the last clause of the Section 10 of the Constitution which states, “No state shall keep troops...in time of peace or engage in war unless actually invaded,” enables the State of Arizona to keep troop, because the State of Arizona is supposedly “invaded” by immigrants. Furthermore, proponents argue that Article Section 8, clause five, which states, “Congress shall have the power to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” does not give Congress the power to deal with Immigration, but only gives Congress an implied power to do so. However, Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to deal with foreign affairs, which is a power denied to the States by Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.
Generally, immigrants enter this country in a peaceful manner, in hopes of starting anew and having a better life. Arizona is not being “invaded” by immigrants and SB1070 violates Article 1, Section 10 Last Clause of the Constitution. SB1070 takes power that is specifically reserved to the Federal government, and denied to the states by the Constitution. Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to deal with foreign affairs. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution denies states the power to deal with foreign affairs. Only in certain circumstances will the State be enabled to deal with foreign affairs. Clearly, in this case, passing a law that deals with immigration is invalid if not passed or approved by Congress.
Opponents, such as myself, believe that SB1070 is unconstitutional in its direct impact upon all people, in several ways. For example, people of Latino descent are subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. Consider what is most likely to happen because of SB1070. Two Latinos are walking down a road in Phoenix, Arizona. They do not speak English. A police officer stops them because he has “reasonable suspicion” that the two men are immigrants because they are speaking only Spanish. When the police officer stops the two men and requests that they show id, the two men do not comprehend what the officer is saying. The officer then has “reasonable suspicion” that the two men are “illegal” immigrants. For all the officer knows, the two men might be in the United States on a visa. Despite the fact that SB1070 states that it will not lead to racial profiling, these men have been racially profiled. Consider an actual occurrence. A man drove his commercial vehicle into a weighing station, and was questioned by an officer. The man showed his driver license to the officer, as well as his social security card but apparently that was not a sufficient amount of identification. The man was arrested and was released after it was proven that he was a citizen of California. Of course, this man was Latino. Is it fair that this man should carry his birth certificate all the time? Most people would not walk around with their birth certificate.
Another example why SB1070 could be unconstitutional is that it violates the Fourth Amendment. Page one Subsection E (lines 37-39) of SB1070, states that, “A law enforcement officer without a warrant may arrest a person...”. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” This Fourth Amendment Right gives any person protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. One specific protection this right guarantees is protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. SB1070 enables officers to arrest a person without a warrant, and therefore clearly contradicts the Constitution. SB1070 also violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment States, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved respectively to the States or to the people.” What this amendment does is ensure that no rights of any person and/or citizen are reduced and/or destroyed. SB1070 weakens and/or destroys several rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. The right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures is destroyed by enabling officers to search people without a warrant. Additionally, the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause is violated by creating a “reasonable suspicion” that if you have a foreign accent or speak a foreign language exclusively, you are here illegally. This then leads the officer to unlawfully seizing your documents. This violates the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause by denying immigrants and other persons of diverse cultures and languages, Equal Protection under law.
The Equal Protection Clause states that, “No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” What the Equal Protection Clause means is that each person is entitled to equal protection under laws to the extent of the state’s jurisdiction. It also serves to ensure that everyone’s civil and political rights are not abridged or denied by any state. Now the Fourth Amendment Rights are guaranteed to all the persons within the United States, therefore the Equal Protection Clause must ensure that the states do not violate the rights of people, even undocumented persons.
SB1070 denies Immigrants and US citizens who fall prey to the law, the Fourth Amendment Right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures by enabling officers to search and/or seize without a warrant based upon a suspicion arising out of their language or racial differences. Thus, SB1070 clearly destroying the Fourth Amendment Rights. In the Supreme Court Case Plyer v. Doe, Justice Brennan stated, “Our conclusion is that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment...,” giving undocumented immigrants 14th Amendment protection of the states. Also, SB1070 contradicts a clear Supreme Court Principle. Via the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the Court invoked the principle that “laws commanded by states, into enacting or enforcing Federal laws, are always unconstitutional,” thus making it clear that SB1070 is unconstitutional. This law allows the state to enact and enforce laws addressing immigration concerns with little thought. Issues of immigration are of a Federal nature and addressing them is a power granted only to the Federal government.
If this law is not abolished, our Constitution will be weakened and all the powers, authority, rights and privileges we benefit from. Other states, such as Virginia, are now attempting to pass similar laws. We should all be concerned for our rights.
Christopher Gabriel Ared Arce was born in Bronx, New York to two Puerto Rican Attorneys, in May 1997. He spent a great deal of time in the Bronx Court House while his mother, Yolanda Arce, was Appellate Division Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniel’s first Court Attorney, while in Civil Court. Christopher is currently a high honor roll student at Henry H. Wells Middle School, and plays on the school soccer team. He was co-MVP in the Patterson Basketball League and is a member of his school’s leadership club. Christopher Arce aspires to attend Harvard College and Harvard Law School . His goal is to become a civil rights lawyer and a Supreme Court Justice some day. Christopher enjoys learning about American History. He particularly enjoys reading Supreme Court Cases. He is very proud to be a member of the Puerto Rican Bar Association. This is his first article for the Puerto Rican Bar Association on the Arizona Immigration Law, SB1070.
The Arizona Immigration Law, also known as SB1070, has two sides, that of the proponents and the opponents. I present both sides, but I focus on why the law is unconstitutional.Many proponents, such as many of the citizens of the State of Arizona, support SB1070, and believe it is constitutional. They believe SB1070 is a step in the right direction in Immigration Policies. Many proponents believe that because the Federal government has “refused” to take action in what is occurring on the borderline of Arizona and Mexico, the Arizona State Government has to assume responsibility and take action. A proponent could argue, that 25% of crime has dropped due to a drop in the number of Illegal Immigrants.
Proponents also argue that Article 1, the last clause of the Section 10 of the Constitution which states, “No state shall keep troops...in time of peace or engage in war unless actually invaded,” enables the State of Arizona to keep troop, because the State of Arizona is supposedly “invaded” by immigrants. Furthermore, proponents argue that Article Section 8, clause five, which states, “Congress shall have the power to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” does not give Congress the power to deal with Immigration, but only gives Congress an implied power to do so. However, Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to deal with foreign affairs, which is a power denied to the States by Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.
Generally, immigrants enter this country in a peaceful manner, in hopes of starting anew and having a better life. Arizona is not being “invaded” by immigrants and SB1070 violates Article 1, Section 10 Last Clause of the Constitution. SB1070 takes power that is specifically reserved to the Federal government, and denied to the states by the Constitution. Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to deal with foreign affairs. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution denies states the power to deal with foreign affairs. Only in certain circumstances will the State be enabled to deal with foreign affairs. Clearly, in this case, passing a law that deals with immigration is invalid if not passed or approved by Congress.
Opponents, such as myself, believe that SB1070 is unconstitutional in its direct impact upon all people, in several ways. For example, people of Latino descent are subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. Consider what is most likely to happen because of SB1070. Two Latinos are walking down a road in Phoenix, Arizona. They do not speak English. A police officer stops them because he has “reasonable suspicion” that the two men are immigrants because they are speaking only Spanish. When the police officer stops the two men and requests that they show id, the two men do not comprehend what the officer is saying. The officer then has “reasonable suspicion” that the two men are “illegal” immigrants. For all the officer knows, the two men might be in the United States on a visa. Despite the fact that SB1070 states that it will not lead to racial profiling, these men have been racially profiled. Consider an actual occurrence. A man drove his commercial vehicle into a weighing station, and was questioned by an officer. The man showed his driver license to the officer, as well as his social security card but apparently that was not a sufficient amount of identification. The man was arrested and was released after it was proven that he was a citizen of California. Of course, this man was Latino. Is it fair that this man should carry his birth certificate all the time? Most people would not walk around with their birth certificate.
Another example why SB1070 could be unconstitutional is that it violates the Fourth Amendment. Page one Subsection E (lines 37-39) of SB1070, states that, “A law enforcement officer without a warrant may arrest a person...”. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” This Fourth Amendment Right gives any person protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. One specific protection this right guarantees is protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. SB1070 enables officers to arrest a person without a warrant, and therefore clearly contradicts the Constitution. SB1070 also violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment States, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved respectively to the States or to the people.” What this amendment does is ensure that no rights of any person and/or citizen are reduced and/or destroyed. SB1070 weakens and/or destroys several rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. The right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures is destroyed by enabling officers to search people without a warrant. Additionally, the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause is violated by creating a “reasonable suspicion” that if you have a foreign accent or speak a foreign language exclusively, you are here illegally. This then leads the officer to unlawfully seizing your documents. This violates the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause by denying immigrants and other persons of diverse cultures and languages, Equal Protection under law.
The Equal Protection Clause states that, “No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” What the Equal Protection Clause means is that each person is entitled to equal protection under laws to the extent of the state’s jurisdiction. It also serves to ensure that everyone’s civil and political rights are not abridged or denied by any state. Now the Fourth Amendment Rights are guaranteed to all the persons within the United States, therefore the Equal Protection Clause must ensure that the states do not violate the rights of people, even undocumented persons.
SB1070 denies Immigrants and US citizens who fall prey to the law, the Fourth Amendment Right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures by enabling officers to search and/or seize without a warrant based upon a suspicion arising out of their language or racial differences. Thus, SB1070 clearly destroying the Fourth Amendment Rights. In the Supreme Court Case Plyer v. Doe, Justice Brennan stated, “Our conclusion is that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment...,” giving undocumented immigrants 14th Amendment protection of the states. Also, SB1070 contradicts a clear Supreme Court Principle. Via the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the Court invoked the principle that “laws commanded by states, into enacting or enforcing Federal laws, are always unconstitutional,” thus making it clear that SB1070 is unconstitutional. This law allows the state to enact and enforce laws addressing immigration concerns with little thought. Issues of immigration are of a Federal nature and addressing them is a power granted only to the Federal government.
If this law is not abolished, our Constitution will be weakened and all the powers, authority, rights and privileges we benefit from. Other states, such as Virginia, are now attempting to pass similar laws. We should all be concerned for our rights.
Christopher Gabriel Ared Arce was born in Bronx, New York to two Puerto Rican Attorneys, in May 1997. He spent a great deal of time in the Bronx Court House while his mother, Yolanda Arce, was Appellate Division Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniel’s first Court Attorney, while in Civil Court. Christopher is currently a high honor roll student at Henry H. Wells Middle School, and plays on the school soccer team. He was co-MVP in the Patterson Basketball League and is a member of his school’s leadership club. Christopher Arce aspires to attend Harvard College and Harvard Law School . His goal is to become a civil rights lawyer and a Supreme Court Justice some day. Christopher enjoys learning about American History. He particularly enjoys reading Supreme Court Cases. He is very proud to be a member of the Puerto Rican Bar Association. This is his first article for the Puerto Rican Bar Association on the Arizona Immigration Law, SB1070.
The PRBA thanks its top sponsors >>
