Editor’s note: Guest blogger Richard Steel is the author of Steel on Immigration Law, published by Thomson Reuters. He practices at Steel, Doebly & Glassman, P.C., in Philadelphia. This post was written before a federal judge’s decision to halt key elements of the Arizona immigration law, before they took effect.
It seems that nothing has galvanized the debate over immigration – illegal and legal – as much as the Arizona statute that, among other matters, enables law enforcement officers to stop and inquire into a person’s immigration status if there is a “reason to believe” that the person is in the United States illegally.
This, and matters relating to immigration in general, raise a whole host of political, economic, social and legal-related issues. Of the numerous issues that are – and will be – raised, the ability to stop a person because of a “reason to believe” that that person is in the United States illegally has sparked debates everywhere.
This has the potential to involve profiling.
One simple question needs to be answered: How can a law enforcement official have a “reason to believe” that a Caucasian, say from Canada, might be in the United States illegally as opposed to someone from Mexico or otherwise looking Hispanic?
There is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of persons from Canada, Europe and numerous other countries of various races and either entered the United States illegally or entered legally but no longer have legal status.
Further, there are obviously millions of persons of Mexican and other Hispanic descent that are in the United States legally, having been born here, having immigrated here or having otherwise obtained legal status in the United States.
Such persons may have the exact same appearance as someone who entered the United States illegally. One has to ask how can a law enforcement official make the distinction or be expected to articulate a reasonable belief that any such person is in the United States legally or illegally.
Putting aside the constitutional and related legal issues that this aspect of the law might raise, consideration also has to be given to the societal effect of the law on those individuals who could be subject to being stopped by law enforcement authorities for no articulable reason relating to their status in the U.S. This law has the potential to have an adverse effect on persons of Hispanic or other minority descent regardless of their status in the U.S.
So-called anti-immigration laws passed by state and municipal governments sometimes have had disastrous economic effects.
The best example of this is Riverside, N.J., which reversed its ordinance penalizing merchants or landlords for selling or renting to persons who did not have legal status in the U.S. Similar adverse economic effect could occur in other communities and states around the country that pass such laws.
However, regardless of the economic interest of the governmental entities involved, the provision allowing law enforcement authorities to stop persons they have a reason to believe are in the United States illegally, when it would simply be difficult for such distinctions to be made among persons even of the same ethnic background with respect to their status in the U.S., is also contrary to the laws and traditions of this country.
Richard Steel
Posted by Richard Steel in:
Company Current | Voices |
