The Arizona legislature has recently passed a law, signed by the governor that requires local law enforcement officials to in effect enforce federal immigration norms. Based upon a police officer's "reasonable suspicion" that a person present in the state is an illegal immigrant, said officer may "reasonable attempt" where practicable to determine the immigration status of the person. Where an official or agency fails to enforce federal immigration law (to the extent permitted by federal law) either through adoption or implementation of a policy, an individual may bring an action complaining of the failure of the official or agency.
As has been widely noted, the law has been significantly criticized as encouraging if not tacitly permitting racial profiling against essentially Spanish-speaking, "Hispanic-looking" residents of the state. Indeed although the legislation says nothing about either language or ethnicity, it hardly takes an acutely analytical mind to deduce that the legislation is not seeking to arm local enforcement to catch and detain undocumented Caucasian Canadians or Europeans residing in the state. Given its proximity to Mexico, it seems rather patently clear that there is likely a specific class of individuals that Arizona's politicians had in mind.
Amongst the many challenging or who plan to challenge this law is an Arizona sheriff who refuses to enforce it. Pima County's Sheriff Clarence Dupnik asserts that the new law is in essence racist for it requires police to make assessments about the possibility of an individual's undocumented status through perceptions about their appearance or how they might sound.
Sheriff Dupnik explains that:
It is often perceived that law enforcement officials are expected to enforce the law irrespective of their own personal feelings about the norm(s) in question or its legality. Sheriff Dupnik's position clearly shows that what is at play is more than just an individual blindly executing a law that requires him to engage in racial profiling - but one conscientiously assessing what the impact of enforcing such a law would mean to the concept of racial equality. It also demonstrates that enforcers of the law can and do engage in legal interpretation in order to determine how to implement the law. When their interpretations lead them to challenge the enforcement of such laws, this may require them to engage and participate in resistance.
As has been widely noted, the law has been significantly criticized as encouraging if not tacitly permitting racial profiling against essentially Spanish-speaking, "Hispanic-looking" residents of the state. Indeed although the legislation says nothing about either language or ethnicity, it hardly takes an acutely analytical mind to deduce that the legislation is not seeking to arm local enforcement to catch and detain undocumented Caucasian Canadians or Europeans residing in the state. Given its proximity to Mexico, it seems rather patently clear that there is likely a specific class of individuals that Arizona's politicians had in mind.
Amongst the many challenging or who plan to challenge this law is an Arizona sheriff who refuses to enforce it. Pima County's Sheriff Clarence Dupnik asserts that the new law is in essence racist for it requires police to make assessments about the possibility of an individual's undocumented status through perceptions about their appearance or how they might sound.
Sheriff Dupnik explains that:
"If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."Sheriff Dupnik's statement of resistance regarding this law rests on more than a moral and legal judgment about the law on the basis that it requires state actors to engage in racial discrimination and profiling, he also argues that law is unconstitutional on more than one ground. First he argues that federal law supersedes state law with respect to immigration enforcement. Second, Dupnik asserts that the reasonable suspicion is unconstitutionally vague.
It is often perceived that law enforcement officials are expected to enforce the law irrespective of their own personal feelings about the norm(s) in question or its legality. Sheriff Dupnik's position clearly shows that what is at play is more than just an individual blindly executing a law that requires him to engage in racial profiling - but one conscientiously assessing what the impact of enforcing such a law would mean to the concept of racial equality. It also demonstrates that enforcers of the law can and do engage in legal interpretation in order to determine how to implement the law. When their interpretations lead them to challenge the enforcement of such laws, this may require them to engage and participate in resistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment