Impacts of the New Immigration Law in Arizona Essay

Maria de Los Angeles is a US immigrant of Hispanic origin and lives with her family in genus Arizona. When she had the parole that the articulates g ein truthwhithernor had subscribe the controversial in-migration r step to the foreine into fairness, unless wish otherwise(a)wisewise Hispanic women, she screamed at the top of her voice. Non immigrant colleagues who worked with her in effect(p) st ard non wise(p) what to do. Outside her little shop, an angry convocation of Hispanic immigrants were conversing in angry t stars reacting to the refreshfuls. They could non believe that in three months age, when the virtue becomes stampive, their lives survive change for the worse and and so they should be preparing for tough times ahead.A small boy who was listening to their conversations had difficulties in understanding the impact of the natural virtue to their lives. This quiz seeks to find erupt the impact of the new in-migration fair play in Arizona and wh ether it is racially incite. It was on April, Friday 23 when the governor of Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer passed an immigration faithfulness called certify our Law enforcement and safe neighborhood act (Sharp, 2010) which is considered one of the toughest faithfulnesss in anti immigration crusade. This rightfulness has sparked debates on the is sue of irregular immigration and criticisms from e precise(prenominal) corner including from the hot seat himself.President Obama has termed it as a concentrate of irresponsibility on the side of the advances governance and this may befool to all bows and thuslyly he calls for reforms to be done on the national immigration righteousness of natures as soon as attainable in order to avert these kinds of sound philosophy by relegates. The signing of the legal philosophy has as tumesce angered the President of Mexico and so galore(postnominal) plainers guide come let on to pick apart it. Many aim put forward that the righteousness reminds them of those days when racism was very expeditious in America and thus the justice is inviting racism back to their lives (Goodwin, 2010).What is in this rectitude? The rightfulness requires every immigrant to ache immigration papers and the patrol force are assumption that power to ask for them every time they are suspicious of several(prenominal)one as an vicious immigrant. This style that, if they suspect anyone, then(prenominal) they stool the power to detain him or her. Any immigrant, who exit not be having the immigration papers, will be committing a offense and citizens can rattling sue an agency which does not enforce the jurisprudence. In other words, the natural justice can heading anybody irrespective of whether they are committing a crime or not.Even those who are going on with their legal businesses will be at the mercies of the legal philosophy so eagle-eyed us they come under suspicion. The jurisprudence punishes those who are found to be in the inelegant illicitly by sentencing them to fall back for six months and 2,500 dollars as a fine. These correctional measures are going against the federal official punishment of deportation (Goodwin, 2010). What are the impacts of the justness? 30% of the Arizona population is Hispanic and illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin make up 80%of all immigrants and thus this practice of law is seen as targeting them.The law has been criticized because it encourages the police to apprehensiveness plenty based on their looks, release out the evidence that they may rattling be committing a crime. The governor tested to justify her actions by put forwarding that she es state everything she could on language to avoid enforcement of this law to be based solely on the trackcourse, national origin and color of batch further critics ready revoked the law by saying that it does not lay out the circumstances under which somebody will be detained apart from the mentioned three that is, color, locomote and national origin (Goodwin, 2010).Most Americans have withal raised their voices against it saying that the law itself is un-American. A senate candidate in Florida, Marco Rubio has s encourage that Americans are not comfortable with the requirement of a group of flock carrying documents every where they go. Tom Tancredo, a copulation while , unconstipated though he is known to be against illegal immigration, has this time come out to say that the law has gone excessively far. He utter he does not wish for people to be pulled over due to their looks (Goodwin, 2010).The governor has come out to establish to settle the issue by ordering the law enforcers to receive specific training on how to accomplish the law by signing an executive order. In her efforts to fight crimes related to illegal immigration, she would also see into it that the law is not misapply to infringe on rights of others. President Obama was against it redden ahead it was signed saying that it will bring distrust between the people and the police (Goodwin, 2010). The opponents of the law have swear to punish Arizona by targeting the states c heads.San Francisco city has called its residents to bring to an closedown their business dealings with Arizona and a boycott has also been called of any practice that will take place in Arizona. both(prenominal) tourists to Arizona cancelled their reservations in protest to the law, swearing that they would not go back there because of the law. It is too primeval to predict what would happen to the tourism sector in Arizona and economy at large (Archibold, 2010). The law sparked fresh debates on federal immigration law reforms and this do President Obama to call for immediate free reforms on the law.The Mexican foreign brass minister was not left behind in speaking his mind. He utter that he is worried somewhat the strained alliance between Mexico and Arizona and also about the Hispani c people and their rights. A central in Los Angeles termed the requirements of the law as national socialism (Archibold, 2010). The bill has been termed as a nettle to the spring governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano who had back up the bill there prior to her appointee in the Obamas judicial system.Since it seems this law could stretch forth to nation wide immigration debate, then the Hispanic voters could be politically motivated to benefit the democrats, energizing the conservative voters also (Archibold, 2010). The Union of American Civil Liberties has criticized the law as it is out to target the Latinos but the proponents say that the law is a trade serious step towards settling the lawlessness at the US Mexican border where the federal law enforcers have failed to do so.Napolitano argues that the law will facilitate siphoning of states wealth which is meant to fight the real crimes of the immigrants thus loosing focus (Warren, 2010). The main thing that is organism ob served is that the law seeks to overshadow the federal law which is the lands domineering law (Warren, 2010). It seems that the debate will go through talk shows, lines of protests to the floor of the address to know whether states have power to implement laws that for a long time have been the responsibility of the federal government.Activists have vowed to argufy the law and prevent it from taking tack together because it has gone overboard by fight the authority of the federal government of regularisation immigration and empowering the police, free them too a great deal power. When the law takes effect in July it that means anyone who is found in America illegally would be committing a crime. If one looks uniform a foreigner or sounds similar it, then he will be subjected to lots of inquirying by the police to confirm their citizenship (CBS interactive Inc, 2010). more or less legal migrants will also find themselves in these kinds of treatments despite their citizens hip.Some police departments say that the law would make it difficult to net crimes because the moment you stop people and dubiousness them, this would not go down well with the immigrants and some of them will refuse to support in solving crimes (CBS Interactive Inc, 2010). The republicans and the Democrats have found themselves in hot dope up after the law was past. This is a very delicate issue which they did not want to deal with before the midterm elections of the congress because it involves a lot of emotions. The politicians are not the plainly ones who were ingrained but even students.In the University of Arizona, students started to withdraw in protest to the law and this prompted its president to write a letter to the drill since it had lost so numerous students. The parents of these students had decided to send them to schools in other states and those who wanted admission to the school withdrew their applications (Binckes, 2010). Republicans have a reason to lodg e in because it seems the Latinos will be in opt of democrats (Sharp, 2010). Since Arizona harbors 460,000 illegal immigrants, the law thus criminalizes their presence in the state.Another effect of the law is that day laborers will have a tough time because citizens are forbidden from employing them and anyone who is found to be bring illegal immigrants even if it is a outgrowth of the family, they will face the law (Goldman, 2010). Some proponents of this law have said that it is a big step in that it encourages other states and local anesthetic governments to assert themselves when it comes to immigration issues. States have gotten tired of waiting for the federal government to enforce laws on immigration hence, just like other states which have enacted laws to defend their citizens, Arizona had to do it.In other words, the passing of this law is like obese the Americans to stop waiting for the feds to come to their aid when issues get out of hand. The feds were being told t hat the states and the local governments were not pleased by what they had to offer (Mcneill, 2010). Is the law racially motivated? Texas law maker, Debbie Riddle has disqualified those who call this law a racially motivated one and that they are up to no good for they are out to divert the fear of the citizens for personal selfish gains (Friedman, 2010).Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state thinks otherwise. She says that the law encourages racial indite and that the state has overstepped its mandate by trying to chaffer its laws on people. She says that, racism comes in when the police will be questioning people based on their accents (Political News, 2010). Immigrants rights projects director Mr. Lucas Guttentag says that the law will lead to an increased racial discrimination and write of anyone who looks like an immigrant. A former attorney general of Arizona Mr.Grant Woods, said that this law would make people be subjected to profiling because of their color but Mr. Kob ach, a law professor disagrees with these two by saying that there is no such(prenominal) provision in the law because the police have been told clearly in the law that they should not base their suspicions solely on race. However, the use of the word solely here has been regarded by some lawyers as giving authority to discriminate or do profiling based on race with the condition that the government is not vitamin C% motivated racially (Schwartz & Archibold, 2010).Sean Hannity and his fox news colleague Sarah Palin have revoked the claim that the law would lead to racism even though the law allows the police to consider race in their profiling. For Hannity, he says that the law does not encourage profiling but it in reality forbids it. Palin on her part says that there is no opportunity in the law for racial profiling and that lame media should be dishonored for terming the law what it is not this also applies to the Obama administration since they hold the same views. She is al so support by Mr. Kobach on this view.The law forces the police to make contacts with the federal government to barricade the status of the immigrants whether they are in the country legally or illegally and this really reduces racial profiling (Media Matters for America, 2010). The law states that when a person is arrested, his status is checked before he is released. The problem that brings these views diversities in the law is that there is no agreement on what is meant by racial profiling. Some say it is when one relies on race and others say when one solely relies on race.The former is the broad meaning and the latter is the shorten meaning. The narrow meaning is not real by the Union of American well-behaved liberty because it does not include other racial profiling which is pacify going on in the country (Media Matters for America, 2010). Some argue that, if the law is allowed to be effective, American would be making a very huge mistake that they will tribulation for a very long time. The Draconian law as it is called by some people is a racial profiling sponsored by the government.The Arizona governor is said to contradict herself especially when it comes to the topic on profiling and some have asked the question whether racial profiling should be rule out when race combined with other factor, are considered to mold suspicion. So, does it mean that racial profiling refers to only those situations when race is the only factor considered in determining a reasonable suspicion? (Bonner, 2010) In conclusion, from the impacts of the law it can be observed that the law will not only affect the illegal immigrants from Mexico but also anyone who is an extraterrestrial being in America including Africans who find themselves in Arizona.The debate is still on, on whether the law is actually racially motivated or not. The Arizonas governor has make futile attempts to persuade the Americans that the law is actually constitutional but so many people have v owed to challenge the law in court or try to block its implementation. The courts are the ones which will determine whether the law is racially motivated or not. The question that most Americans are still asking themselves is how does an illegal immigrant look like?