Thread: Arizona may toughen laws on illegal immigration

Arizona may toughen laws on illegal immigration
by Alia Beard Rau - Mar. 20, 2010 12:00 AM

Arizona may soon have the toughest immigration laws in the nation.

A wide-ranging, controversial measure moving quickly through the Legislature would, among other things, make Arizona the only state in the nation to charge illegal immigrants with trespassing. It would require law enforcement to try to determine the immigration status of people they suspect are here illegally. And the law would make it a crime to pick up a day laborer or be picked up as a day laborer.


Although lawmakers face a slew of illegal-immigration-related bills, this measure has raised an outcry. Opponents say it will waste law-enforcement resources, drive away taxpaying immigrants needed to fill jobs and force everyone to carry proof of citizenship to avoid arrest.

There is an identical version of the bill in each chamber of the Legislature, which is done sometimes to speed the process by decreasing the number of public hearings.

Senate Bill 1070, sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, passed the Senate.

House Bill 2632, sponsored by Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, is expected to be voted on by the House Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, Gowan said. If it passes without changes, it could head to a final vote and then the governor's desk that same day.

If Gov. Jan Brewer signs the bill, it could become one of the first new laws of the year.

Pearce calls the immigration bill the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." It's something he has been working on with groups across the state and the nation for years.

"It's a simple bill," Pearce said during a recent legislative-committee hearing. "It simply puts into place enforcement provisions that are really already provided under federal law."

A similar measure he sponsored passed the Legislature in 2006 but was vetoed by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Brewer doesn't comment on bills before they've reached her desk, but she has proved more conservative on immigration issues than her predecessor.

Gowan said he is confident the bill will become law.

"We've got the support up there right now," he said. "We believe the governor will sign it."

Gowan said the time also is right for Arizona residents.

"It's an issue for many of us just because of the economy. People are worried about the jobs," he said. "They are definitely worried about that down here in my neck of the woods."

But the American Civil Liberties Union, religious leaders and the Border Action Network argue the bill will hurt Arizonans, not help them. Brewer has received more than 4,000 postcards asking her not to sign the bill, and there have been rallies of opposition in front of her office.

The ACLU says the trespassing portion of the bill unconstitutionally usurps the powers of the federal government by allowing the state to regulate immigration. The group says no other state or municipality in the nation makes unlawful presence a crime.

A New Hampshire District Court judge said the same thing when she dismissed trespassing charges against several illegal immigrants in 2005.

Pearce said his bill is not unconstitutional.

"We expect to be sued, but we will prevail," he said. "The law is carefully written in anticipation of those kinds of challenges."

Catholic Bishops James Wall of Gallup, N.M., Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix wrote a joint letter, saying that they were concerned the measure would make people fearful to report crimes and that children brought into the country by their parents could be criminalized under the bill's trespassing portion.

"If enacted, these bills could lead to separation of family members that would not take place under current federal law," the letter states.

The Rev. Paul Langston-Daley of West Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Glendale said he understands the frustration with the illegal-immigration issues nationwide. But he wants Arizona lawmakers to wait for a national comprehensive immigration bill that is "safe, humane and practical" and that offers a path to citizenship. He said this state effort is none of those.

"I'm not really feeling particularly safe with law-enforcement officers that can randomly stop people," he said.

The Rev. Sue Youngblood with St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Chandler said this state effort will push people out of Arizona.

"We need the immigrants. We need their labor," she said. "They are taxpayers, and they are consumers."

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, represented by lobbyist John Thomas, is concerned the bill leaves law-enforcement agencies open to lawsuits, which could be a financial disaster.

For example, he said, someone could decide that a police-department policy that requires some of its officers to spend 10 hours a week on a DUI task force violates the portion of the law that forbids an official from adopting a policy that "limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, represented by lobbyist Levi Bolton, supports the bill and said officers will responsibly enforce the resulting laws.

"We are offended you would think this is some kind of platform for police officers to have open season on anybody," he said in a committee hearing. "It's a rule-of-law issue."

Anna Gaines, founder of American Citizens United and a naturalized U.S. citizen who grew up in Mexico, said the bill is good for Arizona.

"I know many people are calling it bigoted and racist," she said. "But we are not anti-immigrant. We support immigrants that come in the front door and do things the right way."

Gaines said the proposed legislation would ensure that individuals in the country illegally do not have freedoms they do not deserve. She said it will deter illegal immigrants from coming to Arizona and, as a result, help decrease crime.

"Right now, we have killers coming across the border as illegal immigrants," she said.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Office also support the bill. The Arizona Attorney General's Office and Arizona Prosecuting Attorney's Office oppose it.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee said in a report that the bill's fiscal impact could not be determined because there is no way to know how many people would be arrested under the bill's provisions.

The report did state that the bill could result in additional costs to state and local governments to jail illegal immigrants, to local law enforcement for training and to county attorneys for increased prosecution. The bill would generate new revenue from court fines.

If the bill succeeded in decreasing the number of illegal immigrants in the state, that could save the state money by reducing public benefits. It also could cost the state money by reducing the amount of taxes collected, according to the report.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... -laws.html

Although lawmakers face a slew of illegal-immigration-related bills, this measure has raised an outcry. Opponents say it will waste law-enforcement resources, drive away taxpaying immigrants needed to fill jobs and force everyone to carry proof of citizenship to avoid arrest.

The illegal invader proponents cry out for a fair debate on this issue, but continue to refer to illegal invaders as taxpaying immigrants!

How can you have a fair an honest debate when the apologists refuse to even acknowledge the problem? There is nothing fair or honest about these people! No debates....enforce the law and deport illegal invaders!

This will never be passed into law because it just makes too much sense!