Arizona's folly; A law that twists the Constitution in pursuit of illegal immigrants

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2021045901&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=9417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

This article is an editorial on the Arizona Immigration law, which allows polices to search those with reasonable suspicion of being possible immigrants. Because Arizona is a border state and there is a huge immigration problem, the law was passed so that police could better target possible immigrants and take proper measurements of action. The author mentions that one third or the population of Arizona is Hispanic, causing significant debate to the law. The author states that this law "will force local police to use skin color, accent or limited proficiency in English as the basis for suspicion." This puts the police in an awkward position because citizens can sue police officers who fail to enforce immigration laws; however, this immigration law almost requires racial profiling. The author addresses that another negative consequence of this law is the effect that it has on our neighboring countries "By fomenting the justified fear among immigrants that any contact with law enforcement agencies will lead to questions about their status, the law makes it increasingly unlikely that immigrants will report crimes, cooperate as witnesses or provide tips to police." The author concludes that the law "preempts federal law. Federal law treats illegal immigration as a civil violation; Arizona law criminalizes it by using the legally dubious mechanism of equating the mere presence of undocumented immigrants with trespassing."

I feel that this article is accurate and brings some key issues in the Arizona Immigration Law to the reader’s attention. The flow of the article seems to be logical and is organized in a simple and easy to read style. The support is not documented, but all of the author’s statements are backed up with some sort of support. The argument is very persuasive and tends to focus on only the negative aspects of the law. Because of this the reader is clearly persuade to not favor the law. The intended audience is undefined, but by publishing in the Washington Post, almost any intended audience is reached. Overall the author has made an appealing article supporting his opinion.

This article makes me feel that there are a few major flaws in the new law. I feel that the grounds for searching those with reasonable suspicion are very undefined and therefore will target a large group of people including many who are in fact US citizens. This will cause negative relations with the police and will encourage racism. Although I f eel that these issues are not right I still feel that there is some of the full story missing. I do not understand how the government would pass such a law unless rigid rules and regulations existed so that there would be no major problems. Because this is an editorial article it only expresses one opinion of the situation. If I were to draw conclusions on this law I would likely find another source stating either the pro and cons of the law, or just the benefits of the law just so that I could compare.