Jump to content

Arizona SB 1070

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.250.91.216 (talk) at 11:10, 3 May 2010 (→‎Constitutionality: major not minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is legislation signed into law in the U.S. state of Arizona by governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010.[1] It is the broadest and strictest anti–illegal immigration measure in decades[1] and has received national and international attention and spurred controversy. The legislation's name is Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act but is best known as simply Arizona SB1070.[2] The bill is scheduled to go into effect on July 28, 2010, ninety days after the end of the legislative session (sine die).[3][4] Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law are expected.[5][6][7][8][9]

The bill makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying legal documents, steps up state and local law enforcement of Federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal immigrants. The paragraph on intent in the legislation says it embodies an 'attrition through enforcement' doctrine.[10][11]

Critics of the legislation say it encourages racial profiling based on wording, enforcement, and historical precedent, while supporters say the law enforces existing federal law; as such it has been called the Driving While Brown, Living While Brown, or Walking While Brown law.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17][18][19] The law was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162 within a week of its signing with the goal of addressing some of these concerns. There have been protests in opposition to the law in many U.S. cities,[20] including calls for a second boycott of Arizona The first being the one over the Arizona cancellation of Martin Luther King Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mecham#Martin_Luther_King_Day.[21] Polling found the law has majority support in Arizona and nationwide.[22][23][24][25]

Provisions

The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law,[26] and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien,[27] during a police stop for some other offense.[28] Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an unlawful alien;[26] a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail.[29] A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[27] SB1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.[27][8]

In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status,[30] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.[30]

Arizona HB2162

On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed by Governor Brewer, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[31] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.[28] Another modification to the original bill indicates that violations of local civic ordinances may give local officials reason to question immigration status,[32] but explicitly limits the right to determine such status to law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government.[28]

Arizona is the first state with such a law.[5] Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments discourage such inquiries for fear that immigrants will not report crimes or cooperate in other investigations.[33]

Background and passage

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.[33] As the state with the most illegal crossings of the Mexico – United States border, its remote and punishing deserts are the entry point for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.[33]

Arizona has a history of passing restrictions on illegal immigration, including legislation in 2007 that imposed heavy sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.[34] Measures similar to SB1070 had been passed by the legislature several times before, only to be vetoed by Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, who subsequently was elevated to Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration and was replaced by Republican Secretary of State of Arizona Jan Brewer.[1][7] There is a similar history of referenda, such as the Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) that have sought to restrict illegal immigrants' use of social services. The 'attrition through enforcement' doctrine is one that think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies have been supporting for several years.[10]

Russell Pearce, sponsor of the bill

Impetus for SB1070 came from shifting demographics leading to a larger Hispanic population, increased drugs- and human smuggling-related violence in Mexico, and a struggling state economy.[35] State residents were also frustrated by the lack of federal progress on immigration, which was even more disappointing given that Napolitano was in the administration.[35] Much of the drafting of the bill was done by Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law[36] and a figure long associated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform who had written immigration-related bills in many other parts of the country.[37] The Arizona State Senate approved an early version of the bill in February 2010.[38] The sponsor of the bill was State Senator Russell Pearce, who had long been one of Arizona's most vocal opponents of illegal immigration.[38] Saying, "Enough is enough," he stated figuratively that the bill would remove handcuffs from law enforcement and place them on violent offenders.[7][39]

The killing of 58-year-old Robert Krentz and his dog, shot on March 27, 2010, while doing fence work on his large ranch roughly 19 miles (31 km) from the Mexican border, contributed to the passage of this round of Arizona legislation.[40] Arizona police had no suspect in murder, but traced a set of footprints from the crime scene to the border, and the resulting speculation that the killer was an illegal alien increased support among the public for the measure.[40][1]

The bill, with a number of changes made to it, passed the Arizona House of Representatives on April 13 by a 35–21 party-line vote.[38] The revised measure then passed the State Senate on April 19 by a 17–11 vote that also closely followed party lines,[7] with all but one Republican voting for the bill, ten Democrats voting against the bill, and two Democrats not voting.[41]

The Mexican Senate urged Governor Brewer to veto the measure[39] and the Mexican Embassy to the U.S. raised concerns about potential racial profiling that may result.[7] Citizen messages to Brewer were 3–1 in favor of the law.[7] A Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that it held wide support among likely voters in the state, with 70 percent in favor against 23 percent opposed, although a majority of voters were also concerned that actions taken due to the bill would violate the civil rights of some American citizens.[8][42] Brewer had been silent on whether she would sign the measure, but facing a Republican Party primary challenge from more conservative opponents, she did.[1]

During the time of the signing, there were over a thousand people at the Arizona State Capitol both in support of and opposition to the bill, and some minor civil unrest occurred.[8] Against concerns that the measure would promote racial profiling, Brewer stated that no such behavior would be tolerated: "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status."[43] She vowed to ensure that police forces had proper training relative to the law and civil rights,[1][43] and soon said she would issue an executive order requiring additional training for all officers on how to implement SB1070 without engaging in racial profiling.[44] Ultimately, she said, "We have to trust our law enforcement."[1] Major sponsor Pearce called the bill's signing "a good day for America."[8]

The immigration issue also was center stage in the re-election campaign of Republican U.S. Senator from Arizona John McCain, who had been a past champion of federal immigration reform measures such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.[40] Also faced with a primary battle, against the more conservative J. D. Hayworth (who had made measures against illegal immigration a central point of his candidacy), McCain supported SB1070 only hours before its passage in the State Senate.[1][40] McCain said on The O'Reilly Factor: "It's the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe."[40]

Reaction

Polling

A Rasmussen Reports poll done nationally around the time of the signing indicated that 60 percent of Americans were in favor, against 31 percent opposed, of legislation allowing local police to "stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant."[23] The same poll also indicated that 58 percent are at least somewhat concerned that "efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens."[23] A national Gallup Poll found that more than three-quarters of Americans had heard about the law, and of those who had, 51 percent were in favor of it against 39 percent opposed.[24] An Angus Reid Public Opinion poll indicated that 71 percent of Americans said they supported the notion of requiring their own police to determine people's status if there was "reasonable suspicion" the people were illegal immigrants, and arresting those people if they could not prove they were legally in the United States.[25] Experts caution that in general, polling has difficulty reflecting complex immigration issues and law.[24] Pollsters argue the numbers likely represent an overall frustration with Washington and support for Arizona’s willingness to act, rather than an anti-immigrant reaction.[45]

Another Rasmussen poll, done statewide after several days of heavy news coverage about the controversial law and its signing, found a large majority of Arizonans still supported it, by a 64 percent to 30 percent margin.[22] Rasmussen also found that Brewer's approval ratings as governor have shot up, going from 40 percent of likely voters before the signing to 56 percent after, and that her margin over prospective Democratic gubernatorial opponent, State Attorney General Terry Goddard (who opposes the law) widened.[46]

Political fallout

The bill was criticized by President Barack Obama who called it "misguided" and said it would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."[40][1] He called for federal immigration reform legislation to forestall such actions among the states.[1][40] Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had "deep concerns" about the law and that it would divert necessary law enforcement resources from combating violent criminals.[47] The Arizona legislation was one of several reasons pushing Democratic congressional leaders to introduce a proposal addressing immigration.[48]

The law has been popular among the Republican Party base electorate; however, several Republicans have opposed aspects of the measure, mostly from those who have represented heavily Hispanic states.[49] These include former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush,[50] former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and current U.S. senatorial candidate Marco Rubio,[50] and former George W. Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove.[51] Some analysts have stated that Republican support for the law gives short-term political benefits by energizing their base and independents, but longer term carries the potential of alienating the growing Hispanic population from the party.[49][52] One Arizona Democrat who defended the bill was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who said her constituents were "sick and tired" of the federal government failing to protect the border and that the current situation was "completely unacceptable."[44] The measure was hailed by Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona – known for his tough crackdowns on illegal immigration within his own jurisdiction – who hoped the measure would cause the federal action to seal the border.[33] Arpaio said, "I think they'll be afraid that other states will follow this new law that's now been passed."[33]

Republican members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives said they would introduce similar legislation in their state, with State Representative Randy Terrill saying it would go even further in regard to penalties.[53] The proposal drew strong reaction both for and against.[54]

Local law enforcement

Arizona's law enforcement groups have been split on the bill,[7][55] with statewide rank-and-file police officer groups generally supporting it and police chief associations opposing it.[8] The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, calling the provisions of the bill "problematic" and expressing that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.[56] Additionally, some officers have repeated the past concern that illegal immigrants may come to fear the police and not contact them in situations of emergency or in instances where they have valuable knowledge of a crime.[57] The Phoenix Police Union, however, supports it.[55]

Protests

A protest against SB1070 by a coalition of community organizations in Minneapolis

Thousands of people staged protests in state capital Phoenix over the law, and a pro-migrant activist called the measure "racist".[2][39] The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials said SB1070 was "an unconstitutional and costly measure that will violate the civil rights of all Arizonans."[6] Mayor Chris Coleman of Saint Paul, Minnesota labeled it as "draconian" as did Texas House of Representatives member Garnet Coleman.[58][59] Some Latino leaders have compared the law to Apartheid in South Africa, Nazi Germany, or the Japanese American internment during World War II.[8][60] Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado also said the law's requirement to carry papers all the time was reminiscent of the early period of Nazi Germany and feared that Arizona was headed towards becoming a police state.[47][61] Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said, "I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation."[62] Proponents of the law have rejected such criticism, and argued that the law was reasonable, limited, and carefully crafted.[63] Stewart Baker, a former Homeland Security official in the George W. Bush administration, said, "The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square. There's nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself."[37] The Anti-Defamation League called for an end to the comparisons with Nazi Germany, saying that no matter how odious or unconstitutional the Arizona law might be, it did not compare to the role that Nazi identity cards played in what eventually became the extermination of European Jews.[64]

Mexican President Felipe Calderón's office said that "the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law [and] the criminalization of migration."[33] The Mexican Foreign Ministry issued a travel advisory for its citizens visiting the state, saying "It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."[65][66] U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City have criticized the law, with Bloomberg stating that it sends exactly the wrong message to international companies and travelers.[43] Some immigration experts said the law might make workers with H-1B visas vulnerable to being caught in public without their hard-to-replace paperwork, which they are ordinarily reluctant to carry everywhere, and that as a consequence universities and technology companies in the state might find it harder to recruit students and employees.[67] Some college and university administrators shared this fear, and President Robert N. Shelton of the University of Arizona expressed concern regarding the withdrawal of a number of honor roll students from the university in reaction to this bill.[68]

U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva, from Arizona's 7th congressional district, called for an economic boycott of his state, by industries from manufacturing to tourism, in response to SB1070.[69] His call was echoed by La Opinión, the nation's largest Spanish-language newspaper, the Rev. Al Sharpton, as well as in proposed resolutions by members of the government of San Francisco, the Los Angeles City Council, the Council of the District of Columbia, and elsewhere.[70][47][71][53] San Francisco, Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Denver took specific action, banning some of their employees from work-related travel to Arizona.[53][58] Calls for various kinds of boycotts were also spread through social media sites, and there were scattered reports of individuals or groups changing their plans or activities in protest of the law.[72][70][2] The prospect of an adverse economic impact made Arizonan business leaders and groups nervous.[72][2][47] Mayor Gordon urged people not to punish the entire state as a consequence.[70]

Major organizations opposing the law, such as the National Council of La Raza, refrained from initially supporting a boycott, knowing that such actions are difficult to execute successfully and even if done cause broad economic suffering, including among the people they are supporting.[21] Arizona did have past case of a large-scale boycott in the late 1980s and early 1990s, where it lost many conventions and several hundred million dollars in revenues after it cancelled Martin Luthur King day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mecham#Martin_Luther_King_Day state holiday.[21] The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposed both the law and the idea of boycotting, saying the latter would only hurt will small businesses and the state’s economy, which was already badly damaged by the collapse of real estate prices and the late-2000s recession.[73] Representative Grijalva said he wanted to keep a bodycott restricted to conferences and conventions and only for a limited time: "The idea is to send a message, not grind down the state economy."[21]

Protests against the law extended to the arts and sports world as well. Colombian pop singer Shakira came to Phoenix and gave a joint press conference against the bill with Mayor Gordon.[74] Linda Ronstadt, of part Mexican descent and raised in Arizona, also appeared in Phoenix and said, "Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down."[75] The Major League Baseball Players Association, of whose members one quarter are born outside the U.S., said that the law "could have a negative impact on hundreds of major league players," especially since many teams come to Arizona for spring training, and called for it to be "repealed or modified promptly."[76] A game at Wrigley Field where the Arizona Diamondbacks were visiting the Chicago Cubs saw demonstrators protesting the law.[77] Protesters focused on the Diamondbacks because owner Ken Kendrick had been a prominent fundraiser in Republican causes, but he in fact opposed the law.[78] U.S. Congressman from New York José Serrano asked baseball commissioner Bud Selig to move the 2011 Major League Baseball All-Star Game from Chase Field in Phoenix.[77] The manager of the Chicago White Sox, Ozzie Guillen, stated that he would boycott that game, "as a Latin American."[79]The World Boxing Council, based in Mexico City, said it would not schedule Mexican boxers to fight in the state.[77]

Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010, a day traditionally used around the world for such activity.[80][81][20] A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Mahoney, attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with chants of "Sí se puede".[80][82][20] The city had become the national epicenter of protests against the Arizona law.[82] Around 25,000 people were at a protest in Dallas, more than 5,000 were in Chicago and Milwaukee, while rallies in other cities generally attracted people in the thousands range.[81][80] Democratic U.S. Congressman from Illinois Luis Gutiérrez was part of a 35-person group arrested in front of the White House in a planned act of civil disobediance that was also urging President Obama to push for comprehensive immigration reform.[83]Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) charged on Sunday that Arizona's new immigration law is "discriminatory" and that it's "sad" the federal government has not done more - less than 24 hours after being arrested at a protest outside the White House. [84]There and in some other locations, demonstrators expressed frustration with what they saw as the administration's lack of action on immigration reform, with signs holding messages such as "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."[81]

Constitutionality

A number of national and state organizations have announced their intentions to take or support legal action against the statute on constitutional grounds, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the NALEO Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Mayor of Phoenix Phil Gordon.[5][6][7][8][9] In addition, President Obama instructed his administration to closely monitor the civil rights implications of the law,[5] and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government was considering several options including a court challenge.[37]

The ACLU criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over the states in immigration matters and provides that only the federal government can enact and enforce immigration laws.[9][5] Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law says that "The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents."[37]

A group filed on April 28, 2010 to launch a referendum drive that would require 76,000 signatures by late July or early August. If enough signatures are collected, the law would be delayed until a vote. If successful, their initiative has the potential to put a hold on the law until 2012.[85]

One of the bill's authors (Kobach) claims that the law embodies the doctrine of "concurrent enforcement" – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict[37] – and that believes it would thus survive any challenge: "There are some things that states can do and some that states can't do, but this law threads the needle perfectly.... Arizona only penalizes what is already a crime under federal law."[36] State Senator Pearce noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts.[5] However, various legal experts were divided on whether the law would survive a court challenge, with one law professor saying it "sits right on that thin line of pure state criminal law and federally controlled immigration law."[37] Past lower court decisions in this area were not always consistent and a decision on the bill's legality from the U.S. Supreme Court is one possible outcome.[37]

On April 29, 2010, a Latino Christian group and an Arizona police officer were the first to file suit against SB1070.[86]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Archibold, Randal C. (April 24, 2010). "U.S.'s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona". The New York Times. p. 1.
  2. ^ a b c d Condon, Stephanie (April 26, 2010). "Arizona Immigration Law Fight Far From Over". CBS News.
  3. ^ "General Effective Dates". Arizona State Legislature. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  4. ^ Arizona State Legislature. "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-103". Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Nowicki, Dan (April 25, 2010). "Court fight looms on new immigration law". The Arizona Republic.
  6. ^ a b c Lakshman, Narayan (April 26, 2010). "Furore over Arizona immigration bill". The Hindu.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h "Ariz. Lawmakers Pass Controversial Illegal Immigration Bill". KPHO-TV. April 20, 2010.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h Harris, Craig; Rau, Alia Beard; Creno, Glen (April 24, 2010). "Arizona governor signs immigration law; foes promise fight". The Arizona Republic.
  9. ^ a b c "ACLU of Arizona Section By Section Analysis of SB 1070 'Immigration; Law Enforcement; Safe Neighborhoods'" (PDF) (Press release). American Civil Liberties Union. April 16, 2010.
  10. ^ a b Vaughan, Jessica M. (April 2006). "Attrition Through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population". Center for Immigration Studies.
  11. ^ Arizona SB1070, Section 1.
  12. ^ http://www.sanfernandosun.com/sanfernsun/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5168&Itemid=2
  13. ^ http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/04/22/20100422johnson23.html
  14. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/common-ground-african-ame_b_554072.html
  15. ^ http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/pa_1/archive/2010/04/28/ariz-immigration-law-provokes-pa-lawmaker.aspx
  16. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/apr/27/usimmigration-mexico-arizona-travel-warning
  17. ^ http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-04-30/article/35189?headline=NEWS-ANALYSIS-Walking-or-Driving-While-Brown---Arizona-s-New-Immigration-Law
  18. ^ http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_14994488?source=commented-
  19. ^ http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8068
  20. ^ a b c "Arizona immigration law sparks huge rallies". CBC News. May 1, 2010.
  21. ^ a b c d Thompson, Krissah (April 30, 2010). "Protesters of Arizona's new immigration law try to focus boycotts". The Washington Post.
  22. ^ a b "Arizona Voters Favor Welcoming Immigration Policy, 64% Support New Immigration Law". Rasmussen Reports. April 28, 2010.
  23. ^ a b c "Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status". Rasmussen Reports. April 26, 2010.
  24. ^ a b c Wood, Daniel B. (April 30, 2010). "Opinion polls show broad support for tough Arizona immigration law". The Christian Science Monitor.
  25. ^ a b "Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law". United Press International. April 29, 2010.
  26. ^ a b Arizona SB1070, Section 3.
  27. ^ a b c Arizona SB1070, Section 2.
  28. ^ a b c Arizona HB2162, Section 3.
  29. ^ Arizona HB2162, Section 4
  30. ^ a b Arizona SB1070, Section 5.
  31. ^ Silverleib, Alan (April 30, 2010). "Arizona governor signs changes into immigration law". CNN.
  32. ^ Davenport, Paul (May 1, 2010). "Arizona governor signs bill with revisions to new law targeting illegal immigration". Los Angeles Times.
  33. ^ a b c d e f Cooper, Jonathan J. (April 24, 2010). "Arizona law raises fear of racial profiling". Associated Press.
  34. ^ Broder, David S. (July 8, 2007). "Arizona's Border Burden". The Washington Post.
  35. ^ a b Archibold, Randal C.; Steinhauer, Jennifer (April 29, 2010). "Welcome to Arizona, Outpost of Contradictions". The New York Times. p. A14.
  36. ^ a b O'Leary, Kevin (April 16, 2010). "Arizona's Tough New Law Against Illegal Immigrants". Time.
  37. ^ a b c Rossi, Donna (April 14, 2010). "Immigration Bill Takes Huge Step Forward". KPHO-TV.
  38. ^ a b c "Thousands Protest Ariz. Immigration Law". CBS News. Associated Press. April 23, 2010.
  39. ^ a b c d e f g Sheldon, Albert S. (April 24, 2010). "Obama criticizes controversial immigration law". The Vancouver Sun. CanWest News Service.
  40. ^ "Bill Status Votes For SB1070 – Final Reading". Arizona State Legislature. Retrieved April 27, 2010.
  41. ^ "70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration". Rasmussen Reports. April 21, 2010.
  42. ^ a b c Samuels, Tanyanika (April 24, 2010). "New York politicians rip into Arizona immigration law, call it 'un-American'". New York Daily News.
  43. ^ a b "Democrats call for elimination of Arizona's new immigration law". CNN. April 28, 2010.
  44. ^ Hunt, Kasie (May 2, 2010). "Worries in Republican Arizona law could hurt party". Politico.
  45. ^ "Election 2010: Arizona Governor: Poll Bounce for Arizona Governor After Signing Immigration Law". Rasmussen Reports. April 28, 2010.
  46. ^ a b c d Gorman, Anna; Riccardi, Nicholas (April 28, 2010). "Calls to boycott Arizona grow over new immigration law". Los Angeles Times.
  47. ^ Bacon Jr., Perry (April 29, 2010). "Democrats unveil immigration-reform proposal". The Washington Post.
  48. ^ a b Hunt, Kasie (April 30, 2010). "Worries in Republican Arizona law could hurt party". Politico.
  49. ^ a b Martin, Jonathan (April 27, 2010). "Jeb Bush speaks out against Ariz. law". Politico.
  50. ^ Condon, Stephanie (April 28, 2010). "Karl Rove Speaks Out Against Arizona Immigration Law". CBS News.
  51. ^ Montopoli, Brian (April 27, 2010). "Arizona Immigration Bill Exposes GOP Rift". CBS News.
  52. ^ a b c Sacks, Ethan (April 30, 2010). "Battle over Arizona's SB 1070: Oklahoma eyes similar immigration law; City Councils eye boycotts". New York Daily News.
  53. ^ "Immigration Plan Draws Fire, Praise". KOCO-TV. April 29, 2010.
  54. ^ a b Johnson, Elias (April 15, 2010). "Police Agencies Split Over Immigration Bill". KPHO-TV.
  55. ^ "AACOP Statement on Senate Bill 1070" (PDF) (Press release). Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
  56. ^ Slevin, Peter (April 30, 2010). "Arizona Law on Immigration Puts Police in Tight Spot". The Washington Post.
  57. ^ a b "Chris Coleman protests the AZ immigration law". KARE-TV. April 29, 2010.
  58. ^ Shieh, Pattie (April 28, 2010). "Arizona Immigration Law Controversy Spills into Texas". KRIV-TV.
  59. ^ Sisk, Richard; Einhorn, Erin (April 26, 2010). "Sharpton, other activists compare Arizona immigration law to apartheid, Nazi Germany and Jim Crow". New York Daily News.
  60. ^ Hunt, Kasie (April 26, 2010). "Democrat: Arizona law like 'Nazi Germany'". Politico.
  61. ^ "Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism". Catholic World News. April 20, 2010.
  62. ^ York, Byron (April 26, 2010). "A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona". The Washington Examiner.
  63. ^ Harkov, Lahav (April 29, 2010). "ADL: Stop Arizona-Holocaust analogies". The Jerusalem Post.
  64. ^ "Travel alert". Mexico: Secretariat of External Relations. April 27, 2010.
  65. ^ Johnson, Kevin (April 27, 2010). "Mexico issues travel alert over new Ariz. immigration law". USA Today.
  66. ^ Thibodeau, Patrick (April 27, 2010). "Arizona's new 'papers, please' law may hurt H-1B workers". Computerworld.
  67. ^ "Students Withdraw From Arizona Universities In Reaction To Law". Huffington Post. April 27, 2010.
  68. ^ Blackstone, John (April 24, 2010). "Congressman Touts Boycott Of Immigration Law". CBS News.
  69. ^ a b c Archibold, Randal C. (April 27, 2010). "In Wake of Immigration Law, Calls for an Economic Boycott of Arizona". The New York Times. p. A13.
  70. ^ Craig, Tim (April 28, 2010). "D.C. Council to consider boycotting Arizona to protest immigration law". The Washington Post.
  71. ^ a b Beard, Betty; Gilbertson, Dawn (April 27, 2010). "Calls to boycott Arizona multiply on social media". The Arizona Republic.
  72. ^ Casacchia, Chris (April 30, 2010). "Political parties still see Phoenix as potential convention site". Phoenix Business Journal.
  73. ^ "Shakira visits Phoenix over tough immigration law". China Daily. April 30, 2010.
  74. ^ Heldman, Breanne L. (April 30, 2010). "Ricky Martin: Arizona Law 'Makes No Sense'". E! Online.
  75. ^ Baxter, Kevin; DiGiovanna, Mike (May 1, 2010). "Baseball union calls for Arizona immigration law to be 'repealed or modified'". Los Angeles Times.
  76. ^ a b c "Congressman asks Selig to move game". ESPN. April 30, 2010.
  77. ^ Rowe, Ashlee (April 29, 2010). "D-backs play on field being shadowed by protests". KTAR 620 ESPN Radio.
  78. ^ Zirin, Dave (May 1, 2010). "'This is Racist Stuff': Baseball Players/Union Speak Out Against Arizona Law". The Huffington Post.
  79. ^ a b c Tareen, Sophia (May 1, 2010). "Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies". Associated Press.
  80. ^ a b c Preston, Julia (May 2, 2010). "Fueled by Anger Over Arizona Law, Immigration Advocates Rally for Change". The New York Times. p. A22.
  81. ^ a b Watanabe, Teresa; McDonnell, Patrick (May 1, 2010). "L.A.'s May Day immigration rally is nation's largest". Los Angeles Times.
  82. ^ Smith, Ben (May 1, 2010). "Gutierrez arrested in protest". Politico.
  83. ^ Smith, Ben (May 1, 2010). "Gutierrez arrested in protest". Politico.
  84. ^ "Tough AZ Immigration Law Facing New Road Blocks". New York Times. April 29, 2010.
  85. ^ Mirchandani, Rajesh (April 30, 2010). "Tough Arizona immigration law faces legal challenges". BBC News.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizona_SB_1070&oldid=359823897"