Craniotis 1 Skandra Craniotis Professor Park English 1301-01 November 6, 2016 The Effects of SB 1070 Have you ever imagined yourself being stopped in the middle of your walk through town because the police think you are an illegal immigrant? In Arizona the government has passed a law that states how police can ask for identifications that prove they are legally in the United States. This law was passed with the purpose of reducing crime rates and unauthorized immigrants in the state of Arizona. Although having an agreeable purpose, many have criticized this law because it has caused many negative effects with the citizens of Arizona and as well, as many people in the United States and the world. The law was passed on “April 23, 2010. Supporters sought border security, while opponents feared racial profiling. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments to uphold or overrule an injunction on certain aspects of the law”(Fronteras 1). Because of these opinions on SB 1070, many people have discussed how this law has created an uprise on negative effects in society rather than positive effects. SB1070 has led to unconstitutional discrimination through racial profiling and has imposed a negative impact particularly on children of Latino heritage. Despite having said that it reduces crime rates, SB1070 proposes the idea that jeopardizes the constitutional rights of human beings. There are many parts to this law that have been found to be unconstitutional. Analysts have stated that the passing of this law has violated the basic Human Rights of the citizens living in the state of Arizona. One of the negative effects that this law has had to the illegal immigrants in the state of Arizona is how they have been discriminated
Craniotis 2 because of their race and because of SB1070. “Arizona attempts to defend Section 5 on the ground that it merely ‘imposes parallel State penalties’ upon the employment of unauthorized workers and ‘adopts the Federal rule as its own.’ As discussed above, that argument fundamentally misconceives relevant preemption principles. Congress’s comprehensive regulation of both employers and employees does not allow State penalties that the Federal statute omits” (Verrilli 43). Moreover, the violation of the constitution is as well present in Section 3 of the Safe Neighborhoods Act. “Section 3 impermissibly intrudes into a field reserved
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 6 pages?