Reasonable Suspicion?

Last Friday, Arizona’s Republican governor Jan K. Brewer signed into law the nation’s strictest bill on illegal immigration to date in spite of concern expressed by President Obama. Under the legislation, police may now detain individuals whom they reasonably suspect entered the United States illegally and authorities can charge immigrants with state crimes if they fail to carry proper immigration papers at any given time. In addition, it even grants citizens the right to sue their cities should they feel that the law is not being enforced strongly enough. While we understand that Arizona is arguably the nation’s most active hotspot for human and drug trafficking from Mexico, we nevertheless find its new immigration law entirely unacceptable since it can only lead to a heightened atmosphere of racial profiling.

What is perhaps most offensive about this new law is its dependence on the vague, highly problematic language of “reasonable suspicion.” This provision will permit police officers to arrest any individual they superficially judge to be suspicious, and it seems reasonable to suggest that such superficial judgments will only perpetuate the racial tension so deeply entwined with the issue of immigration in the U.S. In a border state such as Arizona, it is unfortunate that this new piece of ill-advised legislation will likely reinforce existing stereotypes and legitimize to some degree the de facto racial profiling that already troubles the region.

The law’s requirement that immigrants carry required papers at all times is an unnecessary inconvenience—one that seems designed as a trap that will simply make it easier to arrest a greater number of immigrants. After all, is it really reasonable to expect an entire immigrant population to carry around a host of bureaucratic documents during every daily activity? Also, the bill does not provide nearly enough protection of the right to privacy, which, while not explicitly included in the Constitution, has nevertheless been upheld by the Supreme Court. Finally, allowing citizens to sue their cities for being too lax on enforcement will accomplish little, and places an enormous amount of pressure on law enforcement officials to uphold the terms of the law. In fact, this particular provision could even lead to hyper vigilance, which would only increase the opportunity for unfounded discrimination.

On the subject of such discrimination, there is no telling just what sort of effect this bill will have on Arizona’s Latino communities, as police are now likely to stop people simply for looking Hispanic. Will Latinos still feel comfortable speaking Spanish, even in the sanctuary of residential areas? Will they still be able to celebrate their cultural heritage in a society that is meant to be pluralistic?

The passage of this bill does not appear to offer any economic gain. Since police officers will need training—and some citizens may, in fact, sue their cities—the new legislation will inspire high costs without the prospect of fiscal benefits in return.

What, then, is the point of this law? Regardless of its intended impact, it functions to enforce racial divisions already deeply entrenched in American society. Needless to say, Arizona’s new stance on illegal immigration does not constitute a constructive way to deal with the issue—an issue that certainly needs addressing. In the meantime, we can only hope that other states confronted with similar circumstances do not follow Arizona’s embarrassing lead.