In April, Arizona’s Governor signed SB 1070, a controversial law aimed at stopping illegal immigration. A coalition of civil rights organizations filed suit challenging the law. The case, Friendly House v. Whiting, argues that the law is unconstitutional. Yesterday, the case was presented in federal court in Arizona. The argument advanced by the plaintiffs, the people bringing the suit, is that the law violates the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Code. SALDEF joined thirty-seven other organizations in filing an amicus brief with the District Court, urging the Court to prevent the law from going into effect on July 29, as planned, until the lawsuit has ended and the courts have determined if the law is constitutional. An amicus brief is chance for people who are not parties to a case (not the people suing or being sued) to submit their expert opinion to the Court. These opinions are designed to help give the court a better sense of the legal and policy implications of the law. So what does this mean and why are we interested in a bill that is aimed at regulating immigration into a US-Mexico border state? A few reasons. Under the proposed law, law enforcement is allowed to request proof of citizenship or immigration status from anyone whose legal status they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ about. This seemingly simple task has extreme implications. The phrase ‘reasonable suspicion’ without guidelines or definitions is recipe for assumption of guilt, until proven innocent. The United States is a country that prides itself on the inherent nature of law and justice within the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’; the implementation of this law goes against this very belief. The brief SALDEF joined focuses on the impact that the law will likely have on minority communities—that it will result in discrimination and will have a negative impact on safety. First, the law “will subject United States citizens and legal residents who are racial and/or ethnic minorities, and particularly those who may be perceived to be foreign, to the stress and humiliation of detention and interrogation, and to the constant fear of the possibility of such treatment.” Second, the law “will chill the willingness of many United States citizens and legal residents to report and cooperate in the investigation of crimes, including hate crimes.” Finally, the law, while ostensibly written in a neutral fashion, improperly targets and subjects members of minority communities to extra scrutiny. This takes us into the core of the issues that many civil rights organizations are fighting, with one tactic of the battle being the amicus brief. Under this law, people who look “foreign” are more likely to be stopped for minor infractions – having a broken taillight, jaywalking or having an overgrown lawn – and then asked for their papers if police believe, just by looking at them, that they could be in the country unlawfully. That means that U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike will be required to carry papers on them at all times. And how exactly is it that a law enforcement officer can ‘tell’ just by looking at someone that they are or are not an illegal immigrant? Does the standard of review start at how you dress? How you talk, your accent or lack-of? The clothes you are wearing? Being Sikh Americans, some of us may know this treatment or mentality very well. Being judged based on what you look like, sound like, or pray like is un-American and unacceptable. By requiring law enforcement officials to question every individual they stop about their citizen or immigration status, the law is inviting things like race, gender, ethnicity, and language as ‘structures’ to rely upon. This law actually invites racial profiling at two junctures. First, law enforcement might find a reason to stop people on a very minor infraction based on the way they look, and then demand their papers. Or they can stop them for an unbiased reason and then, based on appearance and nothing else, demand their papers. Furthermore, imagine living in a society that operates as a police-state; community safety is no longer the primary goal. It actually makes us less safe because community members will be reluctant to report crimes, violence, or disturbances for fear that a family member (for example) might be detained or deported because law enforcement was called. This means domestic violence situations are MORE likely to go unreported, as are thefts, robberies, and assaults. These crimes affect all residents, legal or not. Furthermore, it is important to realize that this is not a single-minority race issue, it includes everyone. Even though the majority of the immigrant population in Arizona is from Hispanic or Latin backgrounds, all other minorities that look ‘reasonably suspicious’ will be affected. Several civil rights organizations have filed lawsuits, in addition to the one that SALDEF has signed on to, contesting the constitutionality of this law, in concept, practice and deliverance. To read a more detailed opinion, Kevin Johnson, Dean of the UC Davis School of Law, has a great summary of the case and the arguments at his blog.
