Before the law even went into effect, major parts of SB were halted by a U.S. District Court judge in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department. Since Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB on April of ; the State has become the frontline for America’s long-delayed immigration debate. Pero, por otro lado, permitió temporalmente que la provisión de la ley SB sobre “muéstrame tus papeles” se implemente en Arizona y en otros estados con .

Author: Yozshunris Kit
Country: Malaysia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Technology
Published (Last): 14 December 2007
Pages: 456
PDF File Size: 17.81 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.58 Mb
ISBN: 754-5-50260-374-6
Downloads: 11479
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Brakora

The Case of Arizona’s SB El caso de la Ley Arizona SB From toArizona’s administrations and Congresses implemented a broad series of policies against undocumented immigrants, including the passage of more than 40 laws. This article analyzes the reasons for the existence and restrictive sense of the harshest of all these laws, Arizona SB The author analyzes both its approval by voters and the motivations of political leaders for passing it.

He argues that this law is the result of electoral interests and promoting a state-and nationwide anti-immigrant agenda with voter support. From toArizona’s administrations and Congresses implemented a far-reaching series of policies against sb070 immigrants.

Analysis of Arizona’s immigration law

Among them was the passage of more than 40 laws that sought results ranging from excluding immigrants from enjoying certain social and public services to sanctioning them with the aim of their “self-deporting,” and in addition creating disincentives for the arrival of new immigrants without the required documentation.

This article’s aim is to explain and analyze the reasons for the existence and restrictive sense of the harshest of all these laws, Arizona’s SB Arizona State Legislature, Doing a study of a single state law has two big advantages: In contrast to other research focusing on political leaders or the electorate to explain the existence of a particular anti-immigrant policy, 2 in this article, I consider it necessary to look at both to fully explain how and why SB was passed.

Most citizens do not usually have direct influence on the passage of bills and the approval of laws on undocumented immigrants. However, they do have indirect influence that allows them to exercise power over people in public positions, using their vote for electing their representatives, their ability to hold referendums to revoke laws, etc.

To achieve the objective, I use an ad hoc combination of theories and theoretical approaches encompassing the reasons for the existence of open or restrictive immigration policies. For clarity of presentation, the article is divided into three parts. The first succinctly explains the historical-political context in which SB is immersed; the second describes the economic, cultural, and security factors that generated its voter support in Arizona; and the third looks at the different motivations that led Republican political leaders to pass it.

Finally, the main conclusion of my analysis is that the Arizona law is the result of an attempt to satisfy electoral interests and to promote an anti-immigrant agenda on a state and national level with broad voter support.

None of this disregards other factors that intervened, for example, the support it received from anti-immigrant groups. To understand the passage of any law, we have to know about the historical-political context in which it was approved.

This section of the article looks at the most important issues in the background of the passage of SBboth nationally and on a state level. There are three crosscutting themes to this: The configuration of a new immigration system based on the legislation created a new migratory pattern in which undocumented immigrants began to predominate. The figures for undocumented immigrants in came to 1.

This gave rise to an important “problem” to be solved: What should be done about sb11070 without papers? IRCA was made up of two amnesty programs, one for special agricultural workers SAW and another for legally authorized workers LAWsanctions against employers who hired persons without documents, and funds for beefing up border control.

Five years later, in the context of the security paradigm, border control became the most important aim of U. Inthe Clinton administration decided to take the reins of border control, increasing the Immigration and Naturalization Sb10070 INS budget and the number of agents.

From ,ey time on, a strategy of innumerable operations more or less randomly came into effect: In addition, Arizona became an important place for settlement: Two years later, “the echoes of Proposition were heard in Washington, D.

Congress passed a series of laws that, in addition to other aims, reflected the issues addressed in the proposition.


Immigration and S1070 Enforcement ICE and local governments for local and state police departments to enforce federal immigration laws. A decade later, the “problem” of undocumented immigrants continued unabated, and the federal government was continuing to sort through different ways to solve it. Between andseveral proposals for reform were presented and discussed in Congress, but none came to fruition.

Standing out in all these moves were the omnibus bills containing several packages in a single text and those that imply greater harm to undocumented immigrants and their families. Arizona was one of the most active states, approving and carrying out policies against undocumented immigrants.

Two policies from the s should be underlined: It was created by a man who would be a key figure in developing the state’s anti-immigrant policies, Russell Sb070, then head of the S1070 of Motor Vehicles of Arizona; and 2 A year later, the city of Chandler, part of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, implemented Operation Restoration. For five years, police stopped anyone who looked Hispanic lsy asked them to prove U.

The first decade of the twenty-first century saw a huge increase in anti-immigrant policies in the state. Inthe Arizona Taxpayer and Citizenship Protection Act Proposition demanded proof of citizenship to be able to vote and access certain public services.

Inthe measure popularly known as the “anti-smuggling law” imposed punishment on anyone engaged in human smuggling, but also allowed punishment for those who hired those services as “co-conspirators” Montoya Zavala and Woo Morales, A year later, four more laws were passed by the legislature: Propositionforbidding undocumented immigrants bail if accused of a crime; Propositionpreventing undocumented immigrants from receiving monetary compensation in civil cases; Propositionmaking English the state’s official language; and Propositionbanning undocumented immigrants from accessing state-funded educational services and assistance from the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

The last makes leu to higher educational systems difficult, since tuition rates triple for students without papers. Also inMaricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio used the ambiguous language in the anti-smuggling law to stop and jail undocumented immigrants.

He also signed a g leyy with ice allowing approximately state agents to be trained to carry out activities normally reserved only for immigration agents. The state funds earmarked for migration meant that emergencies would be ignored by state police, at lfy same time that many complaints were lodged for “racial profiling” and human rights violations. On January 1,the Legal Arizona Workers Act lawa pey into le, mandating that employers verify whether their employees are authorized to legally work in the United States.

Plascencia states that there were practically no guilty verdicts under lawa and that this may have been due to the fact that Sheriff Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas’s enforcement focused on apprehending unauthorized workers in workplace raids and through smuggling inspections. According to McDowell and Provine, the Arizona legislation “is the first state law to directly challenge the federal government’s claim of plenary power over enforcement of its immigration law” The second kind sb10700 stipulation includes the controversial Section 2, subsection B, which implies greater risk of police action through racial profiling, a subsection upheld by the Supreme Court in Sinema shows how many of the elements included in this law were part of proposals presented in previous years, but that did sb070 pass the two chambers of the legislature or were vetoed by then-Governor Janet Napolitano, Brewer’s predecessor.

That is, SB not only inherits the policies carried out in Arizona in recent years, but also grew up alongside them. Table 1 shows the main stipulations in the Arizona law, regardless of whether they had injunctions filed against them or if they were ultimately struck down.

This article does not xb1070 to explain why the law was approved with this concrete content, which would be an impossible task, but to explain its existence, its lwy, and its anti-immigrant character. The factors I think generated the support of sb10770 majority of Arizona voters for SB fall into three categories: The demographic factor is also very important, but for reasons of clarity, it is presented here with the others.

Two economic arguments will help us understand the support of the Arizona electorate for restrictive immigration policies. First of all, when the economy goes into recession or a downturn, the public tends to want to restrict immigration more.

Arizona SB 1070

The second factor is the perception of a possible cost of undocumented immigration for taxpayers in the state, which leads to support for restrictive measures against immigration. A large part of the state’s immigrant workers were in construction, where more than jobs were lost, according to estimates from the American Community Survey ACS.


This meant that the undocumented immigrants hired during the construction sector’s mega-boom were the first to lose their jobs. They then began to be seen both as a potential tax burden for the state and as a threat to jobs for the native-born.

Polling expert Bruce D. Merrill said that in in Arizona, the number of persons who thought that Hispanics were taking jobs away from U. Americans rose Archibold and Steinhauer, While many anti-immigrant measures were created before the crisis, as the preceding paragraphs show, one of the potentially most damaging measures for undocumented immigrants, SBappeared a little over two years later. On the other hand, “The most careful and objective studies of this topic conclude that, while immigrants illegal and legal represent a net fiscal gain to the federal government, they are often a net burden to affected states and a definite fiscal negative to local governments” Fix and Passell, The high level of undocumented immigration into Arizona was a concern for taxpayers, 8 some of whom considered they were subsidizing this sector of the population unjustifiably, regardless of whether this was true or not.

The responses and reactions of native-born Arizonans to immigration depend to a great extent on their perceptions of the magnitude of migratory flows and “stocks” and of their characteristics documented or undocumented, ethnic origin, phenotype, culture, etc.

Arizona’s population grew to more than double its size: Latinos represented two-fifths of the almost 3. Inthe Hispanic population surpassed the two-million mark. Graph 1 shows how it has grown more than the rest of the population in three decades. Inthe Latino population was It should also be underlined that most Hispanics in Arizona were of Mexican origin 90 percent in Between andthe number of Hispanics or Latinos not of Mexican origin dropped.

Developed by the author using Ruggles et al. These three fears are pointed out by Plascencia This implies that the native-born population favored the measures that supposedly would put the brakes on these changes. In addition, the state of Arizona has historically been known for its xenophobia and occasional racism and the policies it has traced along those lines.

As Plascencia points out, inits second le of statehood, its first governor passed the Lsy to Protect sb107 Citizens of the United States in Their Employment against Noncitizens of the United States in Arizona. In contrast with current laws, mainly focusing on undocumented immigrants, that law was against all non-citizens, the majority of whom were Mexican.

In the late s and early leey, the frame of mind prevalent in Arizona was made clear “when it refused to declare a paid holiday to celebrate the life of civil rights champion Martin Luther King, Jr.

Finally, it should be pointed out that anti-immigrant policies have created an atmosphere of discrimination against the Hispanic community “without papers” in Arizona that makes the harsh policies against them seem natural.

According to Tonatierra leader Salvador Reza, Arizona became the most racist state in the United States, surpassing others that had historically been seen as topping that list, like Alabama and Mississippi Lugones, After September 11,the security paradigm definitively permeated all levels of government local, state, and federal.

Immigration to Arizona, particularly undocumented immigration, was associated in people’s minds with drug trafficking, delinquency, and crime. The populist rhetoric of politicians like Russell Pearce, the Republican senator who promoted the Arizona law, and Governor Brewer merely corroborated and encouraged that association.

For Pearce, undocumented immigration was undoubtedly a burden for the state, and also constituted a threat to security:. Why did I propose SB ? I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state.

I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowing, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals.

The murder of Robert Krentz-whose family had been ranching in Arizona since by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans. Drug trafficking and human smuggling in Arizona were among the highest of all along the Mexico-U.

Init said that Arizona was ly in the nation with regard to the entry of Mexican marihuana and an important port of entry for other kinds of drugs.