Today, SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law, went into effect. However, in a partial victory for opponents individual protestors and civil rights organizations to the U.S. Department of Justice—the law will be implemented only in part, and without the mandate for immigrants to carry their papers at all times and for law enforcement to check the immigration status of those they subjectively suspect to be undocumented.
By “tabling” the most violative provisions of civil and human rights law until the courts have resolved the issues, Judge Susan Bolton confirmed that it was “not in the public interest” for Arizona to preempt federal enforcement of immigration law. This decision comes on the heels of revelations that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) set a quota to deport 400,000 undocumented immigrants by September 30, 2010.
Clearly, while Arizona’s law may be problematic, so to are federal enforcement efforts.
According to the ICE Chief John Morton, intentional deportation efforts would prioritize only those immigrants who present a danger to American safety (of which there are not 400,000); however, federal, state, and local efforts to assign quotas or create laws that implicitly encourage racial profiling and demeaning social policy suggest an alternate reality.
WATCH REV. AL SHARPTON DISCUSS IMMIGRATION REFORM ON ‘THE ED SHOW’:
[MSNBCMSN video=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640″ w=”592″ h=”346″ launch_id=”38457810^150^734770″ id=”msnbc22b879″]
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
To reach their quota, ICE officials reportedly increased detention space; swept prisons and jails, offered early release to those willing to go quickly; and, deported immigrants who presented no physical danger at all, but who had presented false information on immigration or visa applications to reenter the United States after being deported. Together, these strategies are not only costly to taxpayers; they also do nothing to interrupt the cycle of undocumented immigration and labor exploitation in this country.
These contradictory approaches to controlling undocumented immigration also suggest that the Obama administration is right— without comprehensive immigration reform, we’ll see a “patchwork” of responses that are unresponsive to what we really need; and instead, focus on arbitrary numerical deportation goals, which can lead to civil liberties and rights abuses (e.g., wrongful arrest, deportation, detention, etc.) that waste taxpayer dollars and increase our reliance on incarceration and punishment to deal with sociopolitical challenges.
In preparation for the implementation of the law, Arizona’s law enforcement agencies have been engaged in training, and given the tremendous authority and discretion that Arizona law enforcement agencies have, training was absolutely appropriate. As we move forward, there is still a need to engage in rigorous training, thought, and dialogue about how to reform and enforce immigration policies in the U.S.
While the most contentious parts of the debate in Arizona is on pause as the courts examine the constitutionality of specific aspects of the law, the broader argument is just gearing up in other states and it is far from over in Congress, which is now entertaining a stratified political effort that would prioritize the legalization of young undocumented immigrants through education and military service. Still, our approach to comprehensive immigration reform should include elements to improve the conditions and use of detention, and protect the due processes and civil rights of individuals impacted by enforcement activities, among other key areas.
Without this effort, what we get is an isolated increase in punitive deportation efforts—as witnessed in Maricopa County, where the Sheriff’s Office was responsible for the deportation of over 26,000 immigrants since 2007, approximately a quarter of all the deportation cases in the country—and the development of misguided policies to grapple with the problem.