Testimony on Arizona’s SB 1070
Alex Pittaro writes:
The most recent Congressional hearing on Arizona’s SB 1070 law illustrated the contention that exists over the controversial state law. On April 24th, 2012 the Senate Judiciary Committee invited legal, employer, legislature and immigration group speakers to comment on the purposes of the law. While this hearing occurred before the provision outlawing undocumented workers was struck down and it does not provide information on population outcomes, it still gives us valuable insight as to how different stakeholders view the law. By examining the testimony of stakeholders and not lawmakers, I hope to gain a better understanding of Arizona’s immigration laws.
Arizona State Senator Steve M. Gallardo, a Democrat with many undocumented immigrants in his district, rebuked the law for discouraging undocumented persons from interacting with law enforcement officials. He testified that the law created an atmosphere of fear for his all of his Latino constituents due to the racial profiling component, something which created a further rift between law enforcement and the Latino community. Gallardo also concluded with his belief that the law was designed not as a crime deterrent but as a means of relegating Latinos and undocumented immigrants into a second-class position in Arizona communities. One can aptly note that these positions on SB 1070 are fairly consistent with others who oppose the law.
Russell Pearce on the other hand offered testimony that emphasized his belief in the importance of the law as a tool for state and national security. As one of the primary drafters of the law, he contends that its original and only purpose was for increased security against the threat illegal immigrants pose against communities. Pearce argues that immigrants not only are a criminal threat that costs Arizona money in terms of benefits, but also that illegal immigration destabilizes national security. He cited many instances where people who committed or planned on committing terrorism in the U.S. violated immigration law. Pearce believed many of these attacks could have been thwarted if greater immigration enforcement had existed at times when the terrorists interacted with local law enforcement. Overall his testimony defended any state’s usage of such laws as Arizona’s SB 1070 by citing a positive impact on crime, and this position is popular among conservatives.
Ret. Senator Dennis DeConcini expressed his discontent with the law not only on a moral and ideological basis but also due to the conflicts it created between state and federal governments. Because the law would encourage other states to create their own distinct laws, DeConcini argued it could create a huge headache for both states and the federal government when it comes to immigration law. In addition to his reservations over the complex legal structure SB 1070 would likely establish, DeConcicni also rebuked the law based on democratic principles such as equality and civil rights. To Deconcicni, the claims made regarding the security benefits are heavily outweighed by any potential civil rights violations.
The final testimony came from Todd Landfried, the Director of Arizona Employers for Immigration reform. As an advocate for sensible federal immigration reform, Landfried argued that laws such as SB 1070 are detrimental to state economies due to the integral role immigrants’ play in low-skill industries. By citing tourism industry statistics, Landfried explains that these laws caused economic damage by creating a shortage in labor that legal residences don’t fulfill. More pertinent to my project, Landfried argues the only success that emerged from the creation of the law was a reduction in the number of immigrants in the state. This is the central hypothesis of my project, and he seems to verify its validity.
In all, while this hearing specifically on Arizona’s SB 1070 isn’t quite useful in determining immigrant populations, it does give an excellent outline of the differing positions and stakeholders the laws effect. From law enforcement to businesses to immigrants themselves, the hearing gives a broad and partisan glimpse at the complexities of Arizona’s SB 1070. While concerns and beliefs regarding the law still exist even after the Supreme Court ruling that upheld most of it, dialogues such as this give insight into how address immigration in the future.
Recent Comments: