Senate Bill 1070 (sb 1070)

The history of the U.S.-Mexico border has always been filled with controversy and uncertainty. From its inception in 1848 with the signing of The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to present day, people from both sides of the border have struggled with a duel identity. On one side of the coin, the people who live along the border are citizens of their respective countries, but on the other side of the coin, they are what Eric Meeks calls, "Border Citizens." This duality is something no outsider could ever hope to understand, and yet the U.S. has recently focused their attention and ire on the individuals who choose to live their lives along the Arizona-Mexico border. Arizona and her citizens are now on the nation's stage, in center spotlight, because of the state's attempts to control the tidal wave of illegal immigrants who are flooding across its borders. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 has unleashed a ripple effect across the country that has Americans sitting firmly on one side of the issue or the other. This controversial bill has made national headlines even before it was signed into law; however, there has not been very much media coverage about why the absolute need for SB 1070 was so great. This egregious oversight is one reason for the public outcry, along with a gross misunderstanding of what exactly SB1070 entails. Throughout this paper I will scrutinize the elements of SB 1070, explore the repercussions of the bill, and also examine some of the legal ramifications it has spurned.

In order to really understand the complexity of immigration reform, a person needs to be familiar with the history of the U.S.-Mexico border. On February 2, 1848 delegates from both the United States and Mexico met in the rural village of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This tiny village located on the outskirts of Mexico City lent its name to the historic treaty that forever changed the landscape of America. The Mexican-American war lasted for more than two years and left more than 63,000 people, from both sides, dead. America emerged from the bloody war victorious and was able to dictate favorable terms for the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty itself established a new border between Mexico and America. A border that had been drawn down a map, but did take into account the people who had lived for hundreds of years in the same spot only to be told they were suddenly living in a different country. Although the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo began the transformation of America's Southern border, it wasn't until the Gadsden Purchase was completed in spring 1854 that it would become the border we have today. The Gadsden Purchase, named for American ambassador to Mexico James Gadsden, was important to the United States because of the railroads' need for a deep southern route. The purposed purchase area included not only territory from Arizona but New Mexico as well. Once the Senate ratified the purchase of the territories, America's southern border was set.

In the very beginning, the people who populated Southwestern Arizona had no real concept of an actual border. The idea of a physical barrier separating the two countries was foreign to the natives; many of whom migrated north and south in order to follow work or visit family. When it was first purchased by America in 1854, the land covering most of Arizona and extending down into Mexico belonged to the O'odham Native American tribe. The O'odham's rights and sovereignty were never considered during negotiations, and with the completion of the Gadsden Purchase, their territory was essentially cut in half by the newly founded border. These border tribes were so used to travelling between the two countries that no real problems arose until immigration laws came into effect in Southern Arizona during the 1900's. It was during this time period that the proverbial "fence" was first constructed. The people on the left, now called Democrats, were against strict border control and regulation enforcement, while the people on the right, Republicans, were in favor of immigration control and tightly contained borders. Since their inception, immigration laws have sparked heated debates over the rights and wrongs of what constitutes citizenship in the United States and Arizona's newest law, SB 1070, is the most controversial one yet. Those in favor of SB 1070 argue it is the responsibility of the United States government to protect the U.S.-Mexico border, but when it comes to the border in Arizona, the proverbial ball is being dropped. Proponents of the bill argue that if the Federal Government is not willing to address border security issues in Arizona then the state should not be prevented from attempting to fix the problem themselves. Opponents of the bill claim it allows for racial profiling and sidesteps the Federal Government's role in immigration.

Senate Bill 1070 is a complex piece of legislature with many different goals, but its main objective is simple; to allow for the enforcement of federal immigration laws which are already in place. Section 1 of the bill, which states the legislature's intent reads, "The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona." Furthermore, the Bill makes it illegal for any agency of the State to, "adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." U.S. federal law requires aliens 14 years old or older who are in the country for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government and to have registration documents in their possession at all times. With the passing of the bill, this federal law will be enforced in Arizona. This seems reasonable, since when travelling outside the United States, even in Mexico, non-citizens are required to carry their passports on them at all times. It should not be considered irrational for the United States to require the same thing. In order to ensure state agencies are upholding the federal laws, SB 1070 makes it legal for a person to bring a lawsuit against an agency they feel "adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." If the person who brings the suit prevails that person may be entitled to reimbursement of court costs and reasonable attorney fees. This opens up government officials responsible for monitoring illegal immigration to public scrutiny, a principal this country was founded on.

Another part of SB 1070 that has been largely misunderstood is when a law enforcement agent has the right to request proof of citizenship. The bill says when any lawful stop, detainment, or arrest is made by a law enforcement agent, "a reasonable attempt

...