The U.S. Supreme Court finished hearing oral arguments about Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Under the law, police may stop and arrest any person in Arizona who they suspect is illegally in the country.

Lower courts have found the law to be unconstitutional. It sparked protest throughout the country when it was passed in 2010.
The law and controversy surrounding it highlights a divide among states. The court should uphold lower courts’ decisions and declare the law unconstitutional. The law tries to take away the federal government’s constitutional power to enforce immigration policy. More concerning, it allows police to profile individuals simply for the way they look.

SB1070’s author, Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, told the court on Wednesday: ‘We have a national crisis, and yet everyone wants to ignore that: the cost, the damage, the crime.’ He testified, ‘In Arizona alone, the annual cost of illegal immigration is approximately $2.6 billion.’

Some states feel the effects of illegal immigration more than others. While there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, border states like Arizona feel the effects differently than states in the Northeast, like New York.

This is part of the justification for Arizona’s passage of the law. The state government felt the federal government was not doing enough.
This is part of why the federal government needs to fully reconsider immigration policies. The deepening divisions should not divide the nation. A policy of ‘self-deportation,’ as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wants, seems a foolish, impractical way of expelling 12 million people from the country.

Romney and others appear to forget how much the United Sates depends on illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants contribute to our economy. Illegal immigrants take low wage, unsafe jobs Americans are unwilling to perform. Illegal immigrants pay taxes. They pay approximately $7 billion into the Social Security system, according to The New York Times. They receive few of the benefits of citizenship, though they pay the tangible costs of citizenship.

Law supporters do not find the law to be morally wrong. The law unnecessarily racially profiles individuals who are nonwhite. Police need to have a reason to suspect being in the country illegally.
There are no external characteristics other than skin color to suggest someone is an illegal immigrant. White individuals are not as likely to be questioned. White Arizonans do not need to worry about always having papers proving their legality at all times, only nonwhites do.
Legal Latino immigrants will be alienated through profiling. Hate crimes reported against Latinos increased 35 percent between 2003 and 2006, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

These laws threaten the supremacy of the federal government. Lawyers in favor of the Arizona law claim the law complements federal efforts. The Constitution has been interpreted to allow Congress to set naturalization and immigration policy.

Because states are trying to change immigration policy, the federal government must respond by coming to a consensus on immigration policy. States should not have to resort to these measures.

The true character of the United States will be revealed in how we treat fellow citizens and immigrants – illegal or legal. It will be difficult as a country to settle on a policy that accommodates the needs of the states near the border and states that inadvertently benefit from illegal immigrants or do not experience the negatives of illegal immigration.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

Published on April 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm