The Arizona Immigration Law has caused huge uproars among lawyers, politicians and the general mass alike. While the Arizona Immigration Law is instrumental in reining illegal immigration, it is in contrast to human rights. The issue is a vital one because, it is a much needed law and this law was pending for a long time in order to restrict illegal immigration. Secondly, even if it appears to be a very useful law, it is extremely restrictive to the point that it violates human rights. Thirdly, the politicians of Washington were reluctant to use this law and were undecided for a long time. However, it should be noted that this immigration has affected the US economy by a large margin.
This steady flow of immigrants has caused the demography of America to keep on changing again and again. The Census Report of 2002 notes that “the population grew to 300 million in 2006 from 76 million in 1900” (Rothwell and Kolb 44-53). The business of America has been relying on immigrants since the 16th century. In the start most came from Europe – the farmers and the continued to ply their trade in the new world. People with technological skill also came. The first cotton factory was set up at “Pawtucket on Rhode Island by Samuel Slater” (Rothwell and Kolb 44-53) who was an expert in manufacturing machinery for textile production. Immigration issues have led to continuous debates. It is said that immigration depressed wages and put pressure on public services – weakening the same. From the late 90s till 2006 there were nearly “10 million legal immigrants and 12 million who came without papers” (Rothwell and Kolb 44-53). There are fears that a population boom would ultimately strangle business and the country’s economy. It has an improved demographic future than others but the economy is ageing. Families have not been saving in America. From the close of World War II till the first years of the 90’s “the rating of family savings hovered from 8% to 12% of earnings” (Rothwell and Kolb 44-53). Then it began to plummet to less than 5% in the middle years of the 90’s decade and turned negative from the middle years of 2005 (Haley-Lock 421-442).
Thus, the 2010 Arizona law was incorporated. However, the Wall Street Journal reports, “Lawyers for the State argued the law sought to fill a vacuum left by the Federal Government’s failure to rein illegal immigration” (Guerrero 1). Thus, it is certain that this is a very important law and the country needs such law to restrict illegal immigration. This is essential because over a large period of time there has been problems regarding illegal immigration and a protective measure was needed. The enactment of the law thus makes way to resolve the issue.
However, the law appears to be extremely restrictive and it violates human rights. So much so that, in accordance to the report by New York Times, “Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like Nazism” (Archibold 1). This is a serious issue as the US being a land of freedom it is unexpected that a step like that should be taken into consideration and it this case it was actually signed for enactment. As a result, the issue has resulted into a huge uproar among all parts of the society and administration. This has been aggravated by lack of action from the part of the federal government.
The federal government was hardly interested in the enactment of the law. Washington Post reported that “Even before it was signed, President Obama criticized the Arizona law, which requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally” (Kornblut and Hsu 1). This reluctance to act was no accepted by the state and, in accordance to the Washington Post report, Phoenix office stated that “decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation” (Kornblut and Hsu 1).
It is no trivial matter that USA is a country of laws and the majority relies on it for protection. Law is “a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority… having binding legal force” (Law 884). This is lacked by those who live in countries where the law can be easily twisted to suit whims of groups or individuals. The founding fathers of the Constitution laid great stress on this point and accordingly drafted the Constitution. “The founding fathers lived under the Writ of Assistance that allowed British officials to… [take action] based upon arbitrary whim… they drafted the Fifth Amendment… right to due process as a bulwark against tyranny” (Burger 1).
It should be noted that the Fifth Amendment states “The founding fathers lived under the Writ of Assistance that allowed British officials to… they drafted the Fifth Amendment… right to due process as a bulwark against tyranny” (Burger 1). This simple statement had immense value to the founders of the Constitution as they had experienced bitterly during British rule due to its lack. Thomas Jefferson had sent out a warning and had said, “Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual” (Jefferson 1). The Fifth Amendment requires the government acting through a court, would have to prove legally the guilt of a person before the latter is punished by death, imprisonment penalty or seizure of property. It guards against the rule of absolute power that can destroy a nation. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo had warned (1937) that the clause “protects those rights which are of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” and that any abolition of that right would be a violation of a fundamental principle of American law” (Vogel 1).
A challenge is thrown to this clause by the 2010 Arizona immigration Law in America. It is a threat to the Fifth Amendment that “removes the motive for coercion or torture by preventing the state from convicting people on the basis of illegally obtained confessions” (Kulka 12-21). The safeguard against the establishment of dictatorial powers, as provided by the clause, should on no account be relaxed because of any external or internal fear. Any compromise on this point exposes all the citizens to that danger. It is this very thing that the founding fathers of the American Constitution had feared and thus took steps to guard freedom.
Again, it should be noted that very often the rights of the accused are ignored but the truth should be otherwise. Due attention should be focused on this – irrespective of the nature of the crime. In USA there are multiple laws in this regard – the most important one being the Sixth Amendment that gives protection to the rights of the accused. The Sixth Amendment mandates that the concerned ruling authorities are to give to the accused of any type of offense in criminal matters, to enjoy certain rights. The accused has the right to a fast public trial. The jury should be impartial and conversant with the nature of the crime the person is accused of and ready to listen to the witnesses produced against the person on the dock.
The victim has the right to obtain these witnesses and take the help of legal counsel (CRS Annotated Constitution: Sixth Amendment 1). There are quite a few people who would regard this protection as something not moral and wrong but that the truth is that if the government lapses in its duties to give protection to those accused of criminal activities the government itself might soon become dangerous. Under such circumstances the 2010 Arizona immigration Law defies the fundamentals of constitution itself. Thus, there cannot be any chance on humanitarian ground to justify this law.
In conclusion it should be stated that the entire scenario was the issue of illegal immigration into Arizona, which, the federal Government failed to address properly and thus, it resulted into a law that was extremely rigid and violated human rights. This, expectedly, resulted into huge uproar among all corners of the society. While the Arizona Immigration Law is instrumental in reining illegal immigration, it is in contrast to human rights. As a result, it is predictable from the point of view of newspapers to raise the issue and put forward a debate over the issue.
References
Archibold, Randal C. “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.”New York Times. 2010.
Burger, Max. “Due Process: The Antidote to Tyranny.” Daily Record. 2008. Web.
CRS Annotated Constitution. “Sixth Amendment.”Cornell University Law School. 2007.
Guerrero, Jean. “Judge Blocks Arizona Law.”The Wall Street Journal. 2010.
Haley-Lock, Allen. “Variation in part-time job quality within the nonprofit human service sector.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 19.4 (2009): 421-442.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government.”University of Virginia. 2004.
Kornblut, Anne E. and Spencer S. Hsu. “Arizona governor signs immigration bill, reopening national debate.”Washington Post. 2010.
Kukla, Jon. “Putting Silence Beyond The Reach Of Government: The Fifth Amendment And Freedom From Torture.” Virginia Cavalcade 34.1 (1984): 12-21.
Law. Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co, 1990.
Rothwell, W., and James Kolb. “Major workforce and workplace trends influencing the training and development field in the USA.” International Journal of Training and Development 3.1 (2007): 44-53.
Vogel, James. “The Ordered Liberty of Substantive Due Process and the Future of Constitutional Law as a Rhetorical Art: Variations on a Theme from Justice Cardozo in the United States Supreme Court.” Albany Law Review. 2007. Web.