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: Mikagor Shakami
Country: Norway
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 19 August 2005
Pages: 164
PDF File Size: 15.49 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.17 Mb
ISBN: 572-4-36407-304-2
Downloads: 2598
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Douzilkree

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 undocumented immigrants. 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.

Arizona SB – Wikipedia

This section lry 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 xb1070 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 immigrants without papers? IRCA was made up of two amnesty programs, one for special agricultural workers SAW and another for legally authorized leg 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. In sh1070, the Clinton administration decided to take the reins of border control, increasing the Immigration and Naturalization Service INS budget and the number of agents.

From that 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 Customs 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 ldy omnibus bills containing several packages in xb1070 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 lsy figure in developing the state’s anti-immigrant policies, Russell Pearce, then head of ssb1070 Department of Motor Vehicles of Arizona; and 2 A s1070 later, the city of Chandler, part of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, implemented Operation Restoration. For five years, police stopped anyone who looked Hispanic and 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 Lej 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 sb1007 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; Leeypreventing undocumented immigrants from sv1070 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 sb10700 Economic Security.

The last makes access 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 agreement 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 the same time that many complaints were lodged for “racial profiling” and human rights violations.

On January 1,the Legal Arizona Workers Act lawa went into effect, mandating that employers verify s1b070 their employees are authorized to legally work lej 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 of 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 not 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 attempt to explain why the law was approved with this concrete content, which would be an impossible task, but to explain its existence, its restrictions, sb11070 its anti-immigrant character. The factors I think generated the support of the 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. The second factor oey the sb11070 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 ssb1070, 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 sb1007 Steinhauer, ab1070 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, sh1070 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 sb11070 their perceptions of the magnitude of migratory flows and “stocks” and of their characteristics documented or undocumented, ethnic origin, phenotype, culture, etc.

Arizona SB 1070

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 year of statehood, its first governor passed the Act to Protect the 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 s, 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 sb11070 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 first in the nation with regard to the entry of Mexican marihuana and an important port of entry for other kinds of drugs.