Wikipedia

Arizona SB 1070: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GreenC bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,703 edits
Rescued 3 archive links; Move 9 urls. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#foxnews.com/section/year/
 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:
[[File:JanBrewer_PresObama.jpg|thumb|right|Arizona Governor [[Jan Brewer]] meeting with President [[Barack Obama]] in June 2010 in the wake of SB&nbsp;1070, to discuss immigration and border security issues.<ref name="az-wh-meet"/>]]
The '''Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act''' (introduced as '''Arizona Senate Bill 1070''' and thus often referred to simply as '''Arizona SB&nbsp;1070''') is a legislative [[Act (document)|act]] in the [[U.S. state]] of [[Arizona]] that is the broadest and strictest anti-[[illegal immigration to the United States|illegal immigration]] measure in decades.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/> It has received national and international attention and has spurred considerable controversy.<ref name=CNN_LA_boycott/>
 
U.S. federal law requires certain aliens to register with the U.S. government,<ref>{{usc|8|1302}}</ref> and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.<ref>{{usc|8|1304(e)}}</ref> The Act additionally makes it a state [[misdemeanor]] crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,<ref name="sb1070sect3"/> bars state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of [[Federal government of the United States|federal]] [[immigration law]]s,<ref name="sb1070sect2"/> and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens.<ref name="sb1070sect5"/> The paragraph on intent in the legislation says it embodies an "attrition through enforcement" doctrine.<ref name="sb1070sect1">Arizona SB&nbsp;1070, §1.</ref><ref name="cis-attr">{{cite web | url=http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back406.html | publisher=[[Center for Immigration Studies]] | title=Attrition Through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population | author=Vaughan, Jessica M. | date=April 2006}}</ref>
 
Critics of the legislation say it encourages [[racial profiling]], while supporters say the law simply enforces existing federal law.<ref name="ap-dissa"/> 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 over 70 U.S. cities,<ref name="cbc-may1"/> including boycotts and calls for boycotts of Arizona.<ref name="wapo-boy"/> Polling has found the law to have majority support in Arizona and nationwide.<ref name="rr-4"/><ref name="rr-3"/><ref name="csm-polls"/><ref name="angus-poll"/> Passage of the measure has prompted other states to consider adopting similar legislation.<ref name="max-other"/>
 
The Act was signed into law by Governor [[Jan Brewer]] on April 23, 2010.<ref name="nyt-az-law">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?ref=us | title=U.S.'s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona | author=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 24, 2010 | page=1}}</ref> It is scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010, ninety days after [[Adjournment sine die|the end of the legislative session]].<ref name="geneffdate">{{cite web | url=http://www.azleg.gov/GeneralEffectiveDates.asp | publisher=[[Arizona State Legislature]] | title=General Effective Dates | accessdate = April 30, 2010}}</ref><ref name="ars1-103">{{cite web | url=http://www.azleg.gov/ars/1/00103.htm | title=Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-103 | accessdate=April 30, 2010 | author=[[Arizona State Legislature]]}}</ref> Legal challenges over its [[constitutionality]] and compliance with [[civil rights]] law have been filed, including one by the [[United States Department of Justice]] that also asked for an injunction against enforcement of the law.<ref name="Feds sue" />
 
== Provisions ==
 
U.S. federal law requires certain aliens to register with the U.S. government,<ref>{{usc|8|1302}}</ref> and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.<ref>{{usc|8|1304(e)}}</ref> The Act additionally makes it a state [[misdemeanor]] crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,<ref name="sb1070sect3">Arizona SB&nbsp;1070, §3.</ref> and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official",<ref name="hb2162sect3">Arizona HB&nbsp;2162, §3.</ref> to determine a person's immigration status if there is [[reasonable suspicion]] that the person is an illegal alien.<ref name=sb1070sect2>Arizona SB&nbsp;1070, §2.</ref> Police may arrest a person if there is [[probable cause]] that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents,<ref name=sb1070sect3/> and an arrested person cannot be released without confirmation of legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to §&nbsp;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<ref name="hb2162sect4">Arizona HB&nbsp;2162, §4.</ref> (SB&nbsp;1070 required a ''minimum'' fine of $500 for a first violation, and for a second violation a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum jail sentence of 6 months).<ref name=sb1070sect5>Arizona SB&nbsp;1070, §5.</ref> A person is "presumed to not<!--DO NOT CHANGE: the wording of the law is indeed "not... unlawfully" (double negative)--> 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's license in the United States|driver license]]; (b) a valid Arizona [[Driver's license in the United States#Non-driver identification cards|nonoperating identification license]]; (c) a valid [[Blood quantum laws|tribal enrollment card]] or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid [[Identity documents in the United States|federal, state, or local government-issued identification]], if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.<ref name=sb1070sect2/>
 
The law 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.<ref name=sb1070sect2/><ref name="az-signing"/> A private citizen who prevails in such a lawsuit may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs.<ref name=sb1070sect2/>
 
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,<ref name=sb1070sect5/> 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.<ref name=sb1070sect5/>
 
====Arizona HB 2162====
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/30/arizona.immigration.law.changes/ | title=Arizona governor signs changes into immigration law | author=Silverleib, Alan | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> 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,<ref name="hb2162sect4"/> and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.<ref name="hb2162sect3"/>
 
==Background and passage==
Arizona is the first state with such a law as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.<ref name="az-chal"/> 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.<ref name="ap-dissa"/> Many police departments discourage such inquiries to avoid deterring immigrants from reporting crimes and cooperating in other investigations.<ref name="ap-dissa"/>
 
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants,<ref name="ap-dissa">{{cite news | url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4nY72M0hFVOHUzIrqYpD67DoBxgD9F9PCN82 | title=Arizona law raises fear of racial profiling | author=Cooper, Jonathan J. | agency=[[Associated Press]] | date=April 24, 2010}}</ref> a figure that has increased fivefold since 1990.<ref name="ap-oth-border"/> 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.<ref name="ap-dissa"/> By the late 1990s, Tucson Border Patrol Sector had become the location for the most number of arrests by the [[United States Border Patrol]].<ref name="ap-oth-border"/>
 
Whether illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate number of crimes is uncertain, with different authorities and academics claiming that the rate for illegals was the same, greater, or less than that of the overall population.<ref name="nyt-crime-rates">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html | title=In Border Violence, Perception Is Greater Than Crime Statistics | author=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=June 20, 2010 | page=18}} The decreased rate in property crimes was noted in a correction on June 27, 2010.</ref> [[Perception bias]] leads many on both sides of the debate to distort crime rates.<ref name="nyt-crime-rates"/> There was also anxiety that the [[Mexican Drug War]], which had caused thousands of deaths, would spill over into the U.S.<ref name="nyt-crime-rates"/> Moreover, by the late 2000s, Phoenix was seeing an average of one kidnapping per day, earning it the reputation as America's worst city in that regard.<ref name="ap-oth-border"/>
 
Arizona has a history of passing restrictions on illegal immigration, including legislation in 2007 that imposed heavy sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070601929_pf.html | author=[[David S. Broder|Broder, David S.]] | title=Arizona's Border Burden | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=July 8, 2007}}</ref> Measures similar to SB&nbsp;1070 had been passed by the legislature in 2006 and 2008, only to be vetoed by Democratic Governor [[Janet Napolitano]].<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="mex-amer">{{cite news | url=http://mexican-american.org/history/2010/arizona/immigration-law/SB-1070_p2.html | title=Governor Jan Brewer Signs (S.B. 1070) Toughest Illegal Immigration Law in U.S.| first=Tito | last=Rodriguez | publisher=Mexican-American.org | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref><ref name="time-battle"/> She was subsequently elevated to [[Secretary of Homeland Security]] in the [[Obama administration]] and was replaced by Republican [[Secretary of State of Arizona]] Jan Brewer.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="wkpo-law">{{cite news |url=http://www.kpho.com/politics/23179490/detail.html | title=Ariz. Lawmakers Pass Controversial Illegal Immigration Bill | publisher=[[KPHO-TV]] | date=April 20, 2010}}</ref> 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.<ref name="cis-attr"/>
 
[[File:Russell Pearce at Phoenix Tea Party 09.12.09.jpg|thumb|right|State Senator [[Russell Pearce]], sponsor of the bill|alt=A smiling, somewhat heavy-set man in his sixties with thinning white hair and wearing a green and blue floral print shirt sits behind a table under a covering outdoors. On his shirt is a sticker saying no to tax hikes and in front of him is a bottle of water. Several other men are sitting near him; in the background is a sign with a quotation about liberty from John Adams, some cars in a parking lot, and tall palm trees.]]
Impetus for SB&nbsp;1070 is attributed to shifting demographics leading to a larger Hispanic population, increased drugs- and human smuggling-related violence in Mexico and Arizona, and a struggling state economy.<ref name="nyt-reasons">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29arizona.html | title=Welcome to Arizona, Outpost of Contradictions | author=Archibold, Randal C. | author2=Steinhauer, Jennifer | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 29, 2010 | page=A14}}</ref> State residents were also frustrated by the lack of federal progress on immigration, which they viewed as even more disappointing given that Napolitano was in the administration.<ref name="nyt-reasons"/>
 
The major sponsor of, and legislative force behind, the bill was State Senator [[Russell Pearce]], who had long been one of Arizona's most vocal opponents of illegal immigration<ref name="wkpo-house"/> and who had successfully pushed through several prior pieces of tough legislation against those he termed "invaders on the American sovereignty".<ref name="npr20080312">{{cite news|title=The Man Behind Arizona's Toughest Immigrant Laws|first=Ted|last=Robbins|publisher=[[NPR]]|date=March 12, 2008|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88125098|work=[[Morning Edition]]}}</ref><ref name="az-p-k">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/31/20100531arizona-immigration-law-kris-kobach.html | title=Arizona immigration law was crafted by activist | author=Rau, Alia Beard | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=May 31, 2010}}</ref> Much of the drafting of the bill was done by [[Kris Kobach]],<ref name="az-p-k"/> a professor at the [[University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law]]<ref name="time-bill">{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1982268,00.html | title=Arizona's Tough New Law Against Illegal Immigrants | author=O'Leary, Kevin | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=April 16, 2010}}</ref> 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.<ref name="nyt-legal"/> Pearce and Kobach had worked together on past legislative efforts regarding immigration, and Pearce contacted Kobach when he was ready to pursue the idea of the state enforcing federal immigration laws.<ref name="az-p-k"/> The [[Arizona State Senate]] approved an early version of the bill in February 2010.<ref name="wkpo-house"/> Saying, "Enough is enough," Pearce stated figuratively that this new bill would remove handcuffs from law enforcement and place them on violent offenders.<ref name="wkpo-law"/><ref name="ap042310">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6426967.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3 | title=Thousands Protest Ariz. Immigration Law | agency=[[Associated Press]] | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=April 23, 2010}}</ref>
 
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 {{convert|19|mi|km}} from the [[Mexico - United States border|Mexican border]], gave a tangible public face to fears about immigration-related crime.<ref name="vanc-bkg"/><ref name="nyt-crime-rates"/> Arizona police were not able to name a murder suspect, but traced a set of footprints from the crime scene south towards the border, and the resulting speculation that the killer was an illegal alien increased support among the public for the measure.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="vanc-bkg">{{cite news | url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Obama+criticizes+controversial+immigration/2944193/story.html | title=Obama criticizes controversial immigration law | author=Sheldon, Albert S. | agency=[[CanWest News Service]] | newspaper=[[The Vancouver Sun]] | date=April 24, 2010}}</ref><ref name="nyt-crime-rates"/><ref name="time-battle"/> For a while, there was talk of naming the law after Krentz.<ref name="time-battle">{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993872,00.html | title=The Battle for Arizona | author= Thornburgh, Nathan | author2=Douglas | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=June 14, 2010 | pages=38–43}}</ref>
 
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.<ref name="wkpo-house">{{cite news | url=http://www.kpho.com/news/23143174/detail.html | title=Immigration Bill Takes Huge Step Forward | author=Rossi, Donna | publisher=[[KPHO-TV]] | date=April 14, 2010}}</ref> The revised measure then passed the State Senate on April 19 by a 17–11 vote that also closely followed party lines,<ref name="wkpo-law"/> with all but one Republican voting for the bill, ten Democrats voting against the bill, and two Democrats not voting.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070.sfinal.1.asp | publisher=[[Arizona State Legislature]] | title=Bill Status Votes For SB1070 – Final Reading | accessdate=April 27, 2010 }}</ref>
 
Once a bill passes, the governor has five days to make a decision to sign, veto, or let it pass unsigned.<ref name="az-angst">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-immigration-bill.html | title=Angst rises as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer mulls immigration bill | author=Rau, Alia Beard Rau | author2=Pitzl, Mary Jo | author3=Rough, Ginger | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 21, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.statescape.com/resources/Governors/GovSignDeadline.asp |title=Governor Signing Deadlines | publisher=StateScape | accessdate=May 9, 2010}}</ref> The question then became whether or not Governor Brewer would sign the bill into law, as she had remained silent on the measure while weighing the consequences.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="az-angst"/> Immigration had not been a prime focus of her political career up to this point, although as secretary of state she had supported [[Arizona Proposition 200 (2004)]].<ref name="nyt-brewer"/> Also as governor she made a push for [[Arizona Proposition 100 (2010)]], a one percent increase in the state sales tax to prevent cuts in education, health and human services, and public safety, despite opposition from within her own party.<ref name="az-angst"/><ref name="nyt-brewer">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25brewer.html | title=Woman in the News: Unexpected Governor Takes an Unwavering Course | author=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 24, 2010}}</ref> These implications along with an upcoming tough Republican Party primary in the [[Arizona gubernatorial election, 2010|2010 Arizona gubernatorial election]] from other conservative opponents supporting the bill were all considered major factors in her decision.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="az-angst"/><ref name="nyt-brewer"/> During the bill's development, her staff had gone over its language line by line with State Senator Pearce,<ref name="az-angst"/><ref name="nyt-brewer"/> but she had also said she had concerns about several of its provisions.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PoliticalInsider/78844 | title=Brewer has 'concerns' about immigration bill; won't say if she'll sign or veto | author=Rough, Ginger | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 19, 2010}}</ref> The [[Senate (Mexico)|Mexican Senate]] urged the governor to veto the measure<ref name="ap042310"/> and the [[Embassy of Mexico in Washington, D.C.|Mexican Embassy to the U.S.]] raised concerns about potential [[racial profiling]] that may result.<ref name="wkpo-law"/> Citizen messages to Brewer, however, were 3–1 in favor of the law.<ref name="wkpo-law"/> A [[Rasmussen Reports]] poll taken between the House and Senate votes showed wide support for the bill among likely voters in the state, with 70&nbsp;percent in favor and 23&nbsp;percent opposed.<ref name="rr-1"/> Of those same voters, 53&nbsp;percent were at least somewhat concerned that actions taken due to the measures in the bill would violate the civil rights of some American citizens.<ref name="rr-1">{{cite news | url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration | title=70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration | publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] | date=April 21, 2010}}</ref> Brewer's staff said that she was considering the legal issues, the impact on the state's business, and the feelings of the citizens in coming to her decision.<ref name="az-angst"/> They added that "she agonizes over these things,"<ref name="az-angst"/> and the governor also prayed over the matter.<ref name="time-battle"/> Brewer's political allies said her decision would cause her political trouble no matter which way she decided.<ref name="nyt-brewer"/> Most observers expected in the end that she would sign the bill, and on April 23 she did.<ref name="nyt-az-law" />
 
[[File:Kyrsten Sinema at SB1070 protest.jpg|thumb|left|State Representative [[Kyrsten Sinema]], opponent of the bill, attending a protest at the [[Arizona State Capitol]] on the day of the bill's signing|alt=A woman in her thirties with fairly short blond hair, wearing sunglasses and a beige and pink top, is surrounded by a crowd in an outdoor setting. Two signs are being held by the crowd, one with Bible quotations about loving others and the other depicting a stop sign. On the right is the corner of a building labeled State Senate.]]
 
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.<ref name="az-signing">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-passed.html | title=Arizona governor signs immigration law; foes promise fight | author=Harris, Craig | author2=Rau, Alia Beard | author3=Creno, Glen | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 24, 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref name="nydn062410">{{cite news | url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/25/2010-04-25_pols_rip_ariz_immig_law.html | title=New York politicians rip into Arizona immigration law, call it 'un-American' | author=Samuels, Tanyanika | newspaper=[[New York Daily News]] | date=April 24, 2010}}</ref> She vowed to ensure that police forces had proper training relative to the law and civil rights,<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="nydn062410"/> and soon said she would issue an executive order requiring additional training for all officers on how to implement SB&nbsp;1070 without engaging in racial profiling;<ref name="cnn042810">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/28/immigration.reform.debate/index.html |title=Democrats call for elimination of Arizona's new immigration law | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> the order was issued on April 23, 2010,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_042310_StatementByGovernorOnSB1070.pdf|title=Governor Jan Brewer Statement on Signing SB&nbsp;1070|accessdate=May 5, 2010}}</ref> and the training materials developed by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) were released in June 2010.<ref>
AZPOST [http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm training materials for SB&nbsp;1070/HB&nbsp;2162] are available on the AZPOST [http://www.azpost.state.az.us/ web site]</ref> Ultimately, she said, "We have to trust our law enforcement."<ref name="nyt-az-law"/>
 
Sponsor Pearce called the bill's signing "a good day for America."<ref name="az-signing"/>
 
News of the law and the debate around immigration gained national attention, especially on cable news television channels, where topics that attract strong opinions are often given extra airtime.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.journalism.org/index_report/pej_news_coverage_index_april_1925_2010 | title=PEJ News Coverage Index: April 19–25, 2010 | publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] | accessdate=June 13, 2010 | author=Morgan, Jon}}</ref>
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]].<ref name="vanc-bkg"/> Also [[United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010|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 SB&nbsp;1070 only hours before its passage in the State Senate.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="vanc-bkg"/> 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."<ref name="vanc-bkg"/> McCain subsequently became a vocal defender of the law, saying that the state had been forced to take action given the federal government's inability to control the border.<ref>{{cite news | author=Good, Chris | url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/mccain-defends-arizonas-immigration-law/39518/ | title=McCain Defends Arizona's Immigration Law | magazine=[[The Atlantic]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=Slevin, Peter | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052102162.html | title=Hard line on immigration marks GOP race in Arizona | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=May 22, 2010}}</ref>
 
==Reaction==
===Opinion polls===
A [[Rasmussen Reports]] poll done nationally around the time of the signing indicated that 60&nbsp;percent of Americans were in favor, and 31&nbsp;percent opposed, to legislation that allows local police to "stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant."<ref name="rr-3"/> The same poll also indicated that 58&nbsp;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."<ref name="rr-3">{{cite news | url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/nationally_60_favor_letting_local_police_stop_and_verify_immigration_status | title=Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status | publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref> A national [[Gallup Poll]] found that more than three-quarters of Americans had heard about the law, and of those who had, 51&nbsp;percent were in favor of it against 39&nbsp;percent opposed.<ref name="csm-polls">{{cite news | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0430/Opinion-polls-show-broad-support-for-tough-Arizona-immigration-law | title=Opinion polls show broad support for tough Arizona immigration law | author=Wood, Daniel B. | newspaper=[[The Christian Science Monitor]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> An [[Angus Reid Public Opinion]] poll indicated that 71&nbsp;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.<ref name="angus-poll">{{cite news | url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/29/Poll-Most-support-Arizona-immigration-law/UPI-55921272544207/ | title=Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law | agency=[[United Press International]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref> A nationwide [[New York Times]]/[[CBS News]] poll found similar results to the others, with 51&nbsp;percent of respondents saying the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach to the problem of illegal immigration, 36&nbsp;percent saying it went too far, and 9&nbsp;percent saying it did not go far enough.<ref name="nytcbs-poll">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04poll.html | title=Poll Shows Most in U.S. Want Overhaul of Immigration Laws | author=Archibold, Randal C. | author2=Thee-Brenan, Megan | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=May 3, 2010 | page=A15}}</ref> Another CBS News poll, conducted a month after the signing, showed 52&nbsp;percent seeing the law as about right, 28&nbsp;percent thinking it goes too far, and 17&nbsp;percent thinking it does not go far enough.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005957-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody | title=Poll: Most Still Support Arizona Immigration Law | author=Condon, Stephanie | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=May 25, 2010}}</ref> A 57&nbsp;percent majority thought that the federal government should be responsible for determining immigration law.<ref name="nytcbs-poll"/> A national [[Fox News]] poll found that 61&nbsp;percent of respondents thought Arizona was right to take action itself rather than wait for federal action, and 64&nbsp;percent thought the Obama administration should wait and see how the law works in practice rather than trying to stop it right away.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/fox-news-poll-arizona-right-action-immigration/ | title=Fox News Poll: Arizona Was Right to Take Action on Immigration | author=Blanton, Dana | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=May 7, 2010}}</ref> Experts caution that in general, polling has difficulty reflecting complex immigration issues and law.<ref name="csm-polls"/>
 
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&nbsp;percent to 30&nbsp;percent margin.<ref name="rr-4">{{cite news | url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/arizona/arizona_voters_favor_welcoming_immigration_policy_64_support_new_immigration_law | title=Arizona Voters Favor Welcoming Immigration Policy, 64% Support New Immigration Law | publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> Rasmussen also found that Brewer's approval ratings as governor have shot up, going from 40&nbsp;percent of likely voters before the signing to 56&nbsp;percent after, and that her margin over prospective Democratic gubernatorial opponent, State Attorney General [[Terry Goddard]] (who opposes the law) widened.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_governor | title=Election 2010: Arizona Governor: Poll Bounce for Arizona Governor After Signing Immigration Law | publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> A poll done by [[Arizona State University]] researchers found that 81&nbsp;percent of registered Latino voters in the state opposed SB&nbsp;1070.<ref name="az-backlash">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/08/20100608arizona-immigration-law-backlash.html | title=SB 1070 backlash spurs Hispanics to join Democrats | author=González, Daniel | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=June 8, 2010}}</ref>
 
===Public officials===
====United States====
In the United States, supporters and opposers of the bill have roughly followed party lines, with [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] generally opposing the bill and many, but not all, [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] supporting it.
 
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."<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="vanc-bkg"/> Obama did later note that the HB&nbsp;2162 modification had stipulated that the law not be applied in a discriminatory fashion, but the president said there was still the possibility of suspected illegal immigrants "being harassed and arrested".<ref name="csm-visit"/> He repeatedly called for federal [[Immigration reform#Immigration reform in the United States|immigration reform]] legislation to forestall such actions among the states and as the only long-term solution to the problem of illegal immigration.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="vanc-bkg"/><ref name="csm-visit"/><ref name="cbs-obama"/> Governor Brewer and President Obama met at the [[White House]] in early June 2010 to discuss immigration and border security issues in the wake of SB&nbsp;1070; the meeting was termed pleasant, but brought about little change in the participants' stances.<ref name="az-wh-meet">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603arizona-governor-meets-with-obama.html | title=Brewer calls Obama meeting a 'success' | author=Rough, Ginger | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=June 4, 2010}}</ref>
 
Two senior and one mid-level federal public officials criticized the Act before reading it. 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.<ref name="lat042810"/> (As governor, Napolitano had consistently vetoed similar legislation throughout her term.<ref name="nyt-az-law"/><ref name="mex-amer"/>) In testimony before the [[United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs|Senate Homeland Security Committee]], McCain drew out that Napolitano had made her remarks before having actually read the law.<ref name="fox-napo"/> U.S. Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] said the federal government was considering several options, including a court challenge based on the law leading to possible civil rights violations.<ref name="nyt-legal"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/holder.arizona.immigration/ | title=Holder: Feds may sue over Arizona immigration law | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=May 9, 2010}}</ref> Holder drew fire from proponents of the law after he acknowledged that he had not read the statute.<ref name="fox-napo">{{cite news | url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/napolitano-admits-read-arizona-immigration-law/ | title=Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Immigration Law in 'Detail' | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=May 18, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/ | title=Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized | author=Dinan, Stephen | newspaper=[[The Washington Times]] | date=May 13, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404231.html | title=Holder is criticized for comments on Ariz. immigration law, which he hasn't read | author=Markon, Jerry | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=May 14, 2010}}</ref> [[Michael Posner (lawyer)|Michael Posner]], the [[Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor]], brought up the law in discussions with a Chinese delegation to illustrate human rights areas the U.S. needed to improve on.<ref name="fox-china">{{cite news | url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/gop-senators-diplomat-apologize-arizona-law-comment-chinese/ | title=McCain, Kyl Call on Diplomat to Apologize for Arizona Law Comment to Chinese | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=May 19, 2010}}</ref> This led McCain and fellow senator from Arizona [[Jon Kyl]] to strongly object to any possibly implied comparison of the law to [[Human rights in the People's Republic of China|human rights abuses in China]].<ref name="fox-china"/> After defending Posner's statement to the Chinese, [[Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs]] P.J. Crowley admitted he had not read the Act.<ref name="cbs-read">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005321-503544.html | title=Sarah Palin: Read Arizona Immigration Law before Condemning It | author=Condon, Stephanie | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=May 18, 2010}}</ref> The admissions by Napolitano and Holder that they had not yet read the law became an enduring criticism of the reaction against the law.<ref name="cbs-read"/><ref name="nydn-puppet"/> Former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate [[Sarah Palin]] accused the party in power of being willing to "criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them."<ref name="cbs-read"/> Governor Brewer's election campaign issued a video featuring a frog hand puppet that sang "reading helps you know what you're talkin' 'bout" and urged viewers to fully read the law.<ref name="nydn-puppet">{{cite news | url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/27/2010-05-27_arizona_governor_jan_brewer_employs_singing_frog_hand_puppet_in_fight_against_il.html | title=Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer employs singing frog hand puppet to promote immigration law | author=Alfano, Sean | newspaper=[[New York Daily News]] | date=May 27, 2010}}</ref> In reaction to the question, President Obama told a group of Republican senators that he had in fact read the law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/obama-tells-gop-senators-read-arizona-immigration-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Text+-+Politics%29 | title=Obama Tells GOP Senators He Has Read Arizona Immigration Law | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=May 25, 2010}}</ref>
 
Senior Democratic U.S. Senator [[Chuck Schumer]] of New York and Mayor of New York City [[Michael Bloomberg]] have criticized the law, with Bloomberg stating that it sends exactly the wrong message to international companies and travelers.<ref name="nydn062410"/>
 
Democrat [[Linda Sánchez]], U.S. Representative from [[California's 39th congressional district]], has claimed that [[white supremacy]] groups are in part to blame for the law's passage, saying, "There's a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups. It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics."<ref name="fox-sanchez">{{cite news | url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/congresswoman-says-white-supremacist-groups-inspired-arizonas-immigration-law/?test=latestnews | title=Congresswoman: White Supremacist Groups Behind Arizona Immigration Law | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=June 3, 2010}}</ref> Republican Representative [[Gary Miller]], from [[California's 42nd congressional district]], called her remarks "an outrageous accusation [and a] red herring. [She's] trying to change the debate from what the law says."<ref name="fox-sanchez"/> Sánchez' district is in [[Los Angeles County]] and Miller's district is in both Los Angeles County and neighboring [[Orange County, California|Orange County]].
 
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.<ref name="pol-gop">{{cite news | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36617.html | title=Worries in Republican Arizona law could hurt party | author=Hunt, Kasie | newspaper=[[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> These include former Governor of Florida [[Jeb Bush]],<ref name="pol042710">{{cite news | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36427.html#ixzz0mKZmqlwp | title=Jeb Bush speaks out against Ariz. law | author=Martin, Jonathan | newspaper=[[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref> former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and current U.S. senatorial candidate [[Marco Rubio]],<ref name="pol042710"/> and former George W. Bush chief political strategist [[Karl Rove]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003631-503544.html | title=Karl Rove Speaks Out Against Arizona Immigration Law | author=Condon, Stephanie | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> 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.<ref name="pol-gop"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003577-503544.html | title=Arizona Immigration Bill Exposes GOP Rift | author=Montopoli, Brian | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref> The issue played a role in several Republican primary contests during the [[United States congressional elections, 2010|2010 congressional election]] season.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/politics/22immig.html | title=Immigration Law in Arizona Reveals G.O.P. Divisions | author=Steinhauer, Jennifer | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=May 22, 2010 | page=A1}}</ref>
 
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."<ref name="cnn042810"/>
 
====Mexico====
Mexican President [[Felipe Calderón]]'s office said that "the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law [and] the criminalization of migration."<ref name="ap-dissa"/> President Calderón also characterized the new law as a "violation of human rights".<ref name="wapo-mex">{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042603810.html | title=Mexican officials condemn Arizona's tough new immigration law | author=Booth, William | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref> Calderón repeated his criticism during a subsequent [[state visit]] to the White House.<ref name="csm-visit">{{cite news | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0519/Obama-and-Calderon-agree-Arizona-immigration-law-is-wrong | title=Obama and Calderón agree: Arizona immigration law is wrong | author=LaFranchi, Howard | newspaper=[[The Christian Science Monitor]] | date=May 19, 2010}}</ref>
 
The measure was also strongly criticized by Mexican health minister [[José Ángel Córdova]], former education minister [[Josefina Vázquez Mota]], and Governor of Baja California [[José Guadalupe Osuna Millán]], with Osuna saying it "could disrupt the indispensable economic, political and cultural exchanges of the entire border region."<ref name="wapo-mex"/> The [[Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (Mexico)|Mexican Foreign Ministry]] issued a [[travel advisory]] for its citizens visiting Arizona, saying "It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."<ref>{{cite web | publisher=[[Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (Mexico)|Secretariat of External Relations]] | location=Mexico | url=http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial/contenido/comunicados/2010/abr/cp_121eng.html | title=Travel alert | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-04-27-immigration_N.htm | title=Mexico issues travel alert over new Ariz. immigration law | author=Johnson, Kevin | newspaper=[[USA Today]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref>
 
In response to these comments, some in the U.S. noted that Mexico has its own law, similar to SB&nbsp;1070, that gives the power to local police forces to check documents of people suspected of being in the country illegally.<ref name="usa-mex-law">{{cite news | url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-mexico-migrants_N.htm | title=Activists blast Mexico's immigration law | author=Hawley, Chris | newspaper=[[USA Today]] | date=May 25, 2010}}</ref> Immigration and human rights activists have also said Mexican authorities frequently engage in racial profiling, harassment, and shakedowns against migrants from Central America.<ref name="usa-mex-law"/>
 
The law has imperiled the 28th annual, binational [[Border Governors Conference]], scheduled to be held in Phoenix in September 2010 and to be hosted by Governor Brewer-.<ref name="nyt-bgc">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07governors.html | title=Law in Arizona Is Causing Split in Border Talks | author=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=July 7, 2010 | page=A1}}</ref> The governors of the six Mexican states belonging to the conference have vowed to boycott it in protest of the law, saying SB&nbsp;1070 is "based on ethnic and cultural prejudice contrary to fundamental rights," and Brewer said in response that she was cancelling the gathering.<ref name="nyt-bgc"/> Governors [[Bill Richardson]] of New Mexico and [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] of California, U.S. border governors who oppose the law, have supporting moving the conference to another state and going forward with it.<ref name="nyt-bgc"/>
 
===Arizona law enforcement===
Arizona's law enforcement groups have been split on the bill,<ref name="wkpo-law"/><ref name="wkpo-enf"/> with statewide rank-and-file police officer groups generally supporting it and police chief associations opposing it.<ref name="az-signing"/><ref name="ap-pol-split">{{cite news | url=http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100517100 | title=Ariz. immigration law divides police across US | agency=[[Associated Press]] | newspaper=[[Asbury Park Press]] | date=May 17, 2010}}</ref>
 
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.<ref>{{cite press release | url=http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_BILL_1070.pdf | title=AACOP Statement on Senate Bill 1070 | publisher=Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police | accessdate=April 25, 2010}}</ref> 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.<ref name="ap-pol-split"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904970.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010042905051 | title=Arizona Law on Immigration Puts Police in Tight Spot | author=Slevin, Peter | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> However, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which represents the city's police officers, has supported the legislation and lobbied aggressively for its passage.<ref name="wkpo-enf">{{cite news | url=http://www.kpho.com/news/23155537/detail.html | title=Police Agencies Split Over Immigration Bill | author=Johnson, Elias | publisher=[[KPHO-TV]] | date=April 15, 2010}}</ref><ref name="ap-pol-split"/> Officers supporting the measure say they have many indicators other than race they can use to determine whether someone may be an illegal immigrant, such as absent identification or conflicting statements made.<ref name="ap-pol-split"/>
 
The measure was hailed by [[Joe Arpaio]], Sheriff of [[Maricopa County, Arizona]] who said, "I think they'll be afraid that other states will follow this new law that's now been passed."<ref name="ap-dissa"/>
 
===Religious organizations and perspectives===
Activists within the church were present on both sides of the immigration debate,<ref name="slct-faith"/> and both proponents and opponents of the law appealed to religious arguments for support.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10598741 | title=Religion becomes a topic of discussion in immigration debate | author=Adams, Andrew | publisher=[[KSL-TV]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref>
 
[[File:Minneapolis protest against Arizona immigrant law SB 1070.jpg|thumb|right|upright|A protest against SB&nbsp;1070 by a coalition of community organizations in [[Minneapolis]]|alt=A daytime city scene on a sidewalk with a tall, brick-faced building on the right and glass-covered skyscrapers in the distance in the center. A dark-haired, fairly young man dressed in casual clothes stands next to a drawing of Jesus and speaks through a megaphone. About 25 people of different ages and both genders can be seen watching him, with a few holding signs, one of which says SEIU.]]
 
State Senator Pearce, a devout member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (which has a substantial population in Arizona), frequently said that his efforts to push forward this legislation was based on that church's [[Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints)|13 Articles of Faith]], one of which instructs in obeying the law.<ref name="slct-faith"/><ref name="az-faith">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/18/20100518arizona-immigration-law-mormon-church.html | title=Arizona immigration law fallout harms LDS Church outreach | author=González, Daniel | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=May 18, 2010}}</ref> This association caused a backlash against the LDS Church and threatened its proselytizing efforts among the area's Hispanic population.<ref name="az-faith"/> The church emphasized that it took no position on the law or immigration in general and that Pearce did not speak for it.<ref name="slct-faith">{{cite news | url=http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14986486?source=most_viewed | title=Mormons on both sides in immigration controversy | author=Stack, Peggy Fletcher | newspaper=[[The Salt Lake Tribune]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref><ref name="az-faith"/>
 
The [[U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops]] denounced the law, characterizing it as draconian and saying it "could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/us_bishops_oppose_draconian_arizona_immigration_law/ | title=US bishops oppose 'draconian' Arizona immigration law | publisher=[[Catholic News Agency]]/[[EWTN News]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> The [[National Council of Churches]] also criticized the law, saying that it ran counter to centuries of biblical teachings regarding justice and neighborliness.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.ncccusa.org/news/100426arizonalaw.html | title=Religious leaders say new Arizona immigration law is unjust, dangerous and contrary to biblical teaching | publisher=[[National Council of Churches]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref>
 
Other members of the Christian clergy differed on the law.<ref name="renw-churches">{{cite news | url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/may-21-2010/churches-and-arizona-immigration-law/6322/ | title=Churches and Arizona Immigration Law | author=Severson, Lucky | work=[[Religion & Ethics Newsweekly]] | publisher=[[PBS]] | date=May 21, 2010}}</ref> United Methodist Church Bishop [[Minerva G. Carcaño]] of Arizona's Desert Southwest Conference opposed it as "unwise, short sighted and mean spirited"<ref>{{cite press release | url=http://desertsouthwestconference.org/churchmembers/bishopscorner/living_the_connection/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=206&tx_ttnews[day]=&cHash=870d08e106 | title=Bishop Minerva G. Caraño statement at SB 1070 press conference | publisher=Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> and led a mission of prominent religious figures to Washington to lobby for comprehensive immigration reform.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37033.html | title=Immigration advocates woo McCain | author=Cummings, Jeanne | newspaper=[[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]] | date=May 11, 2010}}</ref><ref name="rns-boy">{{cite news | url=http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/28/1978062/faith-leaders-tread-carefully.html | title=Faith leaders tread carefully on Arizona boycott | author=Goldberg, Eleanor | agency=[[Religion News Service]] | newspaper=[[Kansas City Star]] | date=May 28, 2010}}</ref> But others stressed the Biblical command to follow laws.<ref name="renw-churches"/> While there was a perception that most Christian groups opposed the law, [[Mark Tooley]] of the [[Institute on Religion and Democracy]] said that immigration was a political issue that "Christians across the spectrum can disagree about" and that liberal churches were simply more outspoken on this matter.<ref name="renw-churches"/>
 
===Concerns over potential civil rights violations===
In its final form, HB&nbsp;2162 limits the use of race. It states: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."<ref name="hb2162sect3"/> While the U.S. and Arizona constitutions ordinarily prohibit use of race as a basis for a stop or arrest, the U.S. and Arizona supreme courts have held that race may be considered in enforcing immigration law. In ''[[United States v. Brignoni-Ponce]]'', the U.S. Supreme Court found: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.”<ref>[http://supreme.justia.com/us/422/873/case.html ''United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,''], 422 U.S. 873, 886–87 (1975).</ref> The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.”<ref>[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4830883310689136313&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr ''State v. Graciano,''], 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982).</ref> Both decisions say that race alone, however, is an insufficient basis to stop or arrest.
 
Critics of the measure have accused it of encouraging racial profiling, and as such it has been called the "Driving While Brown", "Living While Brown", or "Walking While Brown" law.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/04/22/20100422johnson23.html | title=How can state's immigration bill not be un-American | author=Johnson, Brad | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 23, 2010}}</ref><ref name="huffpo-jackson">{{cite news | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/common-ground-african-ame_b_554072.html | title=Common Ground, African-Americans & Latinos | author=[[Jesse Jackson|Rev. Jackson, Jesse]] | publisher=[[The Huffington Post]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_14994488?source=commented- | title=Taking a stand against Arizona law | author=Montoya, Butch | newspaper=[[Denver Post]] | date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> The Reverend [[Jesse Jackson]] said that opposition to the law would lead to common ground being formed between Latinos and African Americans<ref name="huffpo-jackson"/> (the latter's vernacular phrase "[[Driving While Black]]" was the origin of the new phrases against the Arizona law).
 
The [[National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials]] said the legislation was "an unconstitutional and costly measure that will violate the civil rights of all Arizonans."<ref name="hindu">{{cite news | url=http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article410982.ece | title=Furore over Arizona immigration bill | author=Lakshman, Narayan | newspaper=[[The Hindu]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref> Mayor [[Chris Coleman (politician)|Chris Coleman]] of [[Saint Paul, Minnesota]], labeled it as "[[draconian]]" as did Democratic [[Texas House of Representatives]] member [[Garnet Coleman]].<ref name="draco"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/100428-arizona-immigration-law-controversy-spills-into-texas | title=Arizona Immigration Law Controversy Spills into Texas | author=Shieh, Pattie | publisher=[[KRIV-TV]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref>
 
Some Latino leaders have compared the law to [[Apartheid]] in [[South Africa]] or the [[Japanese American internment]] during [[World War II]].<ref name="az-signing"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/04/26/2010-04-26_rev_al_plans_immig_rally.html | title=Sharpton, other activists compare Arizona immigration law to apartheid, Nazi Germany and Jim Crow | author=Sisk, Richard | author2=Einhorn, Erin | newspaper=[[New York Daily News]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref>
 
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 [[anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany]] and feared that Arizona was headed towards becoming a [[police state]].<ref name="lat042810"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36365.html | title=Democrat: Arizona law like 'Nazi Germany' | author=Hunt, Kasie | newspaper=[[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6079 | title=Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism | agency=[[Catholic World News]] | date=April 20, 2010}}</ref>
 
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 [[The Holocaust|extermination of European Jews]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=174259 | title=ADL: Stop Arizona-Holocaust analogies | author=Harkov, Lahav | newspaper=[[The Jerusalem Post]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref>
 
Proponents of the law have rejected such criticism, and argued that the law was reasonable, limited, and carefully crafted.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html | title= A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona | author=[[Byron York|York, Byron]] | newspaper=[[The Washington Examiner]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref> [[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."<ref name="nyt-legal"/>
 
Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives [[Steve Montenegro]] supported the law, saying that "This bill has nothing to do with race or profiling."<ref name="ksaz-monte">{{cite news | url=http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/montenegro-supports-immigration-law-4-28-2010 | title=Hispanic Rep. Montenegro Supports Immigration Law | publisher=[[KSAZ-TV]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> Montenegro, who legally immigrated to the U.S. from [[El Salvador]] with his family when he was four, stated, "I am saying if you here illegally, get in line, come in the right way."<ref name="ksaz-monte"/>
 
===Protests===
Thousands of people staged protests in state capital [[Phoenix, Arizona|Phoenix]] over the law around the time of its signing, and a pro-immigrant activist called the measure "racist".<ref name="ap042310"/><ref name="cbs042610">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003391-503544.html | title=Arizona Immigration Law Fight Far From Over | author=Condon, Stephanie | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=April 26, 2010}}</ref> Passage of the HB&nbsp;2162 modifications to the law, although intended to address some of the criticisms of it, did little to change the minds of the law's opponents.<ref name="nytcbs-poll"/><ref name="cbs050510">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004262-503544.html | title=Tucson, Flagstaff Sue Arizona over Immigration Law | author=Condon, Stephanie | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=May 5, 2010}}</ref>
 
[[Image:Immigration Reform Leaders Arrested 7.jpg|thumb|left|Protesters being arrested as part of the May 1, 2010, civil disobedience display in front of the [[White House]] ]]
 
Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010, a day [[International Workers' Day|traditionally used around the world to assert workers' rights]].<ref name="cbc-may1">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/01/arizona-immigration-law-protests.html | title=Arizona immigration law sparks huge rallies | publisher=[[CBC News]] | date=May 1, 2010}}</ref><ref name="ap-may1">{{cite news | url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huRjne6QzrwLdBqAiTD0OUErnQQwD9FEDGFG2 | title=Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies | author=Tareen, Sophia | agency=[[Associated Press]] | date=May 1, 2010}}</ref><ref name="nyt-may1">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02immig.html | title=Fueled by Anger Over Arizona Law, Immigration Advocates Rally for Change | author=Preston, Julia | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=May 2, 2010 | page=A22}}</ref> A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Mahoney, attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters waving Mexican flags and chanting "[[Sí se puede]]".<ref name="cbc-may1"/><ref name="ap-may1"/><ref name="lat-may1"/> The city had become the national epicenter of protests against the Arizona law.<ref name="lat-may1">{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-0502-immig-rally-20100502,0,5011733.story | title=L.A.'s May Day immigration rally is nation's largest | author=Watanabe, Teresa | author2= McDonnell, Patrick | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> Around 25,000 people were at a protest in [[Dallas]] and more than 5,000 were in [[Chicago]] and [[Milwaukee]], while rallies in other cities generally attracted around a thousand people or so.<ref name="ap-may1"/><ref name="nyt-may1"/> 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 disobedience]] that was also urging President Obama to push for comprehensive immigration reform.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Gutierrez_arrested_in_protest.html | title=Gutierrez arrested in protest | author=Smith, Ben | newspaper=[[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]] | date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref name="nyt-may1"/>
 
Protests both for and against the Act took place over [[Memorial Day Weekend]] in Phoenix and commanded thousands of people.<ref name="nyt-memday">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30immig.html | title=The Two Sides Intersect in Immigration Debate | author=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=May 30, 2010 | page=14}}</ref> Those opposing it, mostly consisting of Latinos, marched five miles to the State Capitol in high heat, while those supporting it met in a stadium in an event arranged by elements of the [[Tea Party movement]].<ref name="nyt-memday"/>
 
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 of [[Phoenix, Arizona|Phoenix]] [[Phil Gordon (politician)|Phil Gordon]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2010-04/30/content_9797017.htm | title=Shakira visits Phoenix over tough immigration law | newspaper=[[China Daily]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> [[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."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b178877_ricky_martin_arizona_law_makes_no_sense.html | title=Ricky Martin: Arizona Law 'Makes No Sense' | author=Heldman, Breanne L. | publisher=[[E! Online]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> A May 16 concert in [[Mexico City]]'s [[Zócalo]], called Prepa Si Youth For Dignity: We Are All Arizona, drew some 85,000 people to hear [[Molotov (band)|Molotov]], [[Jaguares (rock band)|Jaguares]], and [[Maldita Vecindad]] headline a seven-hour show in protest against the law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7278144fcfbad6f7f06d5ce4d2ec1d50 | title=Mexican Rock Acts Headline Concert To Protest Arizona Law | author=Ben-Yehuda, Ayala | magazine=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]] | date=May 17, 2010}}</ref>
 
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."<ref name="lat-mlb">{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-arizona-players-union-20100501,0,7332125.story | title=Baseball union calls for Arizona immigration law to be ‘repealed or modified’ | author=Baxter, Kevin | author2=DiGiovanna, Mike | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> A [[Major League Baseball]] game at [[Wrigley Field]] where the [[Arizona Diamondbacks]] were visiting the [[Chicago Cubs]] saw demonstrators protesting the law.<ref name="espn-move"/> Protesters focused on the Diamondbacks because owner [[Ken Kendrick]] had been a prominent fundraiser in Republican causes, but he in fact opposed the law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://ktar.com/?nid=184&sid=1289400 | title=D-backs play on field being shadowed by protests | author=Rowe, Ashlee | publisher=[[KTAR (AM)|KTAR 620 ESPN Radio]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref> The [[Phoenix Suns]] of the [[National Basketball Association]] wore their "Los Suns" uniforms normally used for the league's "Noche Latina" program for their May 5, 2010 ([[Cinco de Mayo]]) [[2010 NBA Playoffs|playoff game]] against the [[San Antonio Spurs]] to show their support for Arizona's Latino community and to voice disapproval of the immigration law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=adande_ja&page=Sarver-100504 | title=Suns using jerseys to send message| author= Adande, J.A. | publisher=[[ESPN]] | date=May 5, 2010}}</ref> The Suns' political action, rare in American team sports, created a firestorm and drew opposition from many of the teams' fans;<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/06/20100506arizona-immigration-law-phoenix-suns-los-suns-jerseys.html | title=Political gesture by Phoenix Suns, a rarity in sports, angers many fans | author=Harris, Craig | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=May 6, 2010}}</ref> President Obama highlighted it, while conservative radio commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] called the move "cowardice, pure and simple."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/obama-limbaugh-focus-on-los-suns-jerseys-in-nba-playoffs.html | title=Obama, Limbaugh Focus on ‘Los Suns’ Jerseys in NBA Playoffs | author=Gloster, Rob | agency=[[Bloomberg News]] | magazine=[[BusinessWeek]] | date=May 6, 2010}}</ref>
 
===Boycotts===
{{redirect|Arizona boycott|the late 1980s–early 1990s boycott of Arizona related to Martin Luther King Jr. Day|Evan Mecham#Martin Luther King Jr. Day|and|Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Reluctance to observe}}
[[Boycott]]s of Arizona were quickly organized in response to SB&nbsp;1070, with resolutions by city governments being among the first to materialize.<ref name="lat042810">{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-0428-arizona-boycott-20100428,0,3583777.story | title=Calls to boycott Arizona grow over new immigration law | author=Gorman, Anna | author2=Riccardi, Nicholas | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref><ref name="nyt042710">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27arizona.html?ref=us | title=In Wake of Immigration Law, Calls for an Economic Boycott of Arizona | author=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 27, 2010 | page=A13}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042705146.html | title=D.C. Council to consider boycotting Arizona to protest immigration law | author=Craig, Tim | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref><ref name="nydn043010"/> The [[government of San Francisco]], the [[Los Angeles City Council]], and city officials in [[Oakland]], [[Minneapolis]], [[Saint Paul, Minnesota|Saint Paul]], [[Denver]], and [[Seattle]] all took specific action, usually by banning some of their employees from work-related travel to Arizona or by limiting city business done with companies headquartered in Arizona.<ref name=CNN_LA_boycott>{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/05/13/los.angeles.arizona.boycott/index.html | title=Los Angeles approves Arizona business boycott | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=May 13, 2010}}</ref><ref name="draco">{{cite news | url=http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=848926 | title=Chris Coleman protests the AZ immigration law | publisher=[[KARE-TV]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref><ref name="nydn043010">{{cite news | url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/30/2010-04-30_battle_over_arizonas_sb_1070_oklahoma_eyes_similar_immigration_law_city_councils.html#ixzz0meLopi8o| author=Sacks, Ethan | newspaper=[[New York Daily News]] | date=April 30, 2010 | title=Battle over Arizona's SB 1070: Oklahoma eyes similar immigration law; City Councils eye boycotts}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011890438_apusarizonaboycottseattle.html|title=Seattle City Council approves Arizona boycott|author=[[Associated Press]]|newspaper=[[The Seattle Times]]|date=May 17, 2010}}</ref>
 
In an attempt to push back against the Los Angeles City Council's action, which was valued at $56 million,<ref name=CNN_LA_boycott/> Arizona Corporation Commissioner [[Gary Pierce]] sent a letter to Los Angeles Mayor [[Antonio Villaraigosa]], suggesting that he'd "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so that Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."<ref name="az-la"/> Such a move was infeasible for reasons of ownership and governance, and Pierce later stated that he was not making a literal threat to cut power to the city.<ref name="az-la">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-electricity-regulator-threatens-power-supply-los-angeles.html | title=Arizona electricity regulator threatens power supply to Los Angeles | author=Randazzo, Ryan | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date= May 19, 2010}}</ref>
 
U.S. Congressman [[Raúl Grijalva]], from [[Arizona's 7th congressional district]], had been the first prominent officeholder to call for an [[economic boycott]] of his state, by industries from manufacturing to tourism, in response to SB&nbsp;1070.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/24/eveningnews/main6429215.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody | title=Congressman Touts Boycott Of Immigration Law | author=Blackstone, John | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=April 24, 2010}}</ref> His call was echoed by ''[[La Opinión]]'', the nation's largest Spanish-language newspaper.<ref name="nyt042710"/> But calls for various kinds of boycotts were also spread through [[social media]] sites, and there were reports of individuals or groups changing their plans or activities in protest of the law.<ref name="cbs042610"/><ref name="nyt042710"/><ref name="az042710"/><ref>{{cite news |title=Alpha Phi Alpha Removes Convention From Ariz. Due To Immigration Law |date=May 1, 2010 |url=http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/alpha-phi-alpha-removes-convention-from-ariz-due-to-immigration-law/comment-page-1/ |newspaper=[[News One]] |publisher=Radio One}}</ref> The prospect of an adverse economic impact made Arizonan business leaders and groups nervous,<ref name="lat042810"/><ref name="cbs042610"/><ref name="az042710">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/04/27/20100427arizona-immigration-bill-boycott.html | title=Calls to boycott Arizona multiply on social media | author=Beard, Betty | author2=Gilbertson, Dawn | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref> and Phoenix officials estimated that the city could lose up to $90 million in hotel and convention business over the next five years due to the controversy over the law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/11/20100511phoenix-convention-center-boycott.html | title=$90 million at risk in boycott of Arizona | author=Berry, Jahna | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=May 11, 2010}}</ref> Phoenix Mayor Gordon urged people not to punish the entire state as a consequence.<ref name="nyt042710"/>
 
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.<ref name="wapo-boy">{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001027.html | title=Protesters of Arizona's new immigration law try to focus boycotts | author=Thompson, Krissah | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> Arizona did have a past case of a large-scale boycott during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it lost many conventions and several hundred million dollars in revenues after [[Evan_Mecham#Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Day|Governor Evan Mecham's cancellation]] of a [[Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]] state holiday and a subsequent failed initial referendum to restore it.<ref name="wapo-boy"/> La Raza subsequently switched its position regarding SB&nbsp;1070 and became one of the leaders of the boycott effort.<ref name="wapo-rnc">{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051203317.html | title=Arizona tourism loses more business in wake of immigration law vote | author=Thompson, Krissah | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=May 12, 2010}}</ref>
 
The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposed both the law and the idea of boycotting, saying the latter would only hurt small businesses and the state’s economy, which was already badly damaged by the [[Financial crisis of 2007–2010|collapse of real estate prices]] and the [[late-2000s recession]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/04/26/daily81.html | title=Political parties still see Phoenix as potential convention site | author=Casacchia, Chris | newspaper=[[Phoenix Business Journal]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> Other state business groups opposed a boycott for the same reasons.<ref name="atl-boy"/> Religious groups opposed to the law split on whether a boycott was advisable, with Bishop Carcaño saying one "would only extend our recession by three to five years and hit those who are poorest among us."<ref name="rns-boy"/> Representative Grijalva said he wanted to keep a boycott restricted to conferences and conventions and only for a limited time: "The idea is to send a message, not grind down the state economy."<ref name="wapo-boy"/> By early May, the state had lost a projected $6–10 million in business revenue, according to the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association.<ref name="atl-boy">{{cite news | url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/arizonas-immigration-law-comes-with-a-price/56416/ | title=Arizona's Immigration Law Comes With a Price | author=Good, Chris | magazine=[[The Atlantic]] | date=May 7, 2010}}</ref> Governor Brewer said that she was disappointed and surprised at the proposed boycotts – "How could further punishing families and businesses, large and small, be a solution viewed as constructive?" – but that the state would not back away from the law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_6f0f09ef-e5df-5417-ad7f-68abe83d8f6b.html | title=Governor: Boycotts disappointing but won't change new law | author=Fischer, Howard | newspaper=[[Arizona Daily Star]] | date=May 6, 2010}}</ref> President Obama took no position on the matter, saying, "I'm the president of the United States, I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts. That's something that private citizens can make a decision about."<ref name="cbs-obama">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006174-503544.html | title=Obama: I Don't Endorse – or Not Endorse – Arizona Boycott | author=Montopoli, Brian | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=May 27, 2010}}</ref>
 
Sports-related boycotts were proposed as well. 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.<ref name="espn-move">{{cite news | url=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5151030 | title=Congressman asks Selig to move game | publisher=[[ESPN]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> The manager of the [[Chicago White Sox]], [[Ozzie Guillen]], stated that he would boycott that game, "as a Latin American".<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/this-is-racist-stuff-base_b_559738.html | title='This is Racist Stuff': Baseball Players/Union Speak Out Against Arizona Law | publisher=[[The Huffington Post]] | date=May 1, 2010 | author=[[Dave Zirin|Zirin, Dave]]}}</ref> The [[World Boxing Council]], based in [[Mexico City]], said it would not schedule Mexican boxers to fight in the state.<ref name="espn-move"/>
 
A boycott by musicians saying they would not stage performances in Arizona was started by [[Zack de la Rocha]], the lead singer of [[Rage Against the Machine]] and the son of a Mexican American, who said, "Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law (SB 1070) takes it to a whole new low."<ref name="nyt-zack">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28boycott.html | title=Performers to Stay Away From Arizona in Protest of Law | author=Rohter, Larry | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=May 27, 2010}}</ref><ref name="cbs-zack">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006306-503544.html | title=Musicians Boycott Arizona to Protest Immigration Law | author=Condon, Stephanie | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=May 28, 2010}}</ref> Called the Sound Strike, artists signing on with the effort included [[Kanye West]], [[Cypress Hill]], [[Massive Attack]], [[Conor Oberst]], [[Sonic Youth]], [[Joe Satriani]], [[Rise Against]], [[Tenacious D]], [[Gogol Bordello]], and [[Los Tigres del Norte]].<ref name="nyt-zack"/><ref name="cbs-zack"/> Some other Spanish-language artists did not join this effort, but avoided playing in Arizona on their tours anyway; these included [[Pitbull (rapper)|Pitbull]], [[Wisin & Yandel]], [[Jenni Rivera]], [[Espinoza Paz]], and [[Conjunto Primavera]].<ref name="nyt-zack"/> The Sound Strike boycott has failed to gain support from many area- or stadium-level acts, and no country music acts have signed on.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/arts/music/29boycott.html | title=Musicians Differ in Responses to Arizona’s New Immigration Law | author=Rohter, Larry | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=May 28, 2010}}</ref>
 
In reaction to the boycott talk, proponents of the law advocated making a special effort to buy products and services from Arizona in order to indicate support for the law.<ref name="apm-buy">{{cite news | url=http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/05/18/pm-some-dont-buy-arizona-boycotts/ | title=Some don't buy Arizona boycotts | work=[[Marketplace (radio program)|Marketplace]] | publisher=[[American Public Media]] | date=May 18, 2010}}</ref><ref name="abc15-buy">{{cite news | url=http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/SB-1070-Boycott-v-Buycott/XePGYfKm2E6EDnzJ9gjyPg.cspx | title=SB 1070: Boycott v. 'Buycott' | author=Shahbazi, Rudabeh | publisher=[[KNXV-TV]] | date=May 15, 2010}}</ref> These efforts, sometimes termed a "buycott", were spread by social media and talk radio as well as by elements of the [[Tea Party movement]].<ref name="apm-buy"/><ref name="abc15-buy"/> Some supporters of the law and legal scholars have also suggested that the city government boycotts of Arizona represent an unconstitutional violation of the [[Interstate Commerce Clause]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.ocregister.com/news/arizona-252174-city-law.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b31f72ce-e5a3-48aa-b0c7-0c561228f13b | title=Cypress councilman wants to support Arizona | author=Mello, Michael | newspaper=[[The Orange County Register]] | date=June 15, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/05/24/a-legal-analysis-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/ | title=A Legal Analysis of the New Arizona Immigration Law | author=Shapiro, Ilya | publisher=[[Cato Institute]] | date=May 24, 2010}}</ref>
 
==Impact==
Some Christian churches in Arizona with large immigrant congregations reported a 30&nbsp;percent drop in their attendance figures.<ref name="rns-boy"/> Schools, businesses, and health care facilities in certain areas also reported sizable drops in their numbers.<ref name="ap-leaving"/><ref name="apr-leaving"/> That and the prevalence of yard sales suggested illegal aliens were leaving Arizona, with some returning to Mexico and others moving to other U.S. states.<ref name="ap-leaving">{{cite news | url=http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/evidence-suggests-many-immigrants-leaving-arizona-over-new-765543.html | title=Evidence suggests many immigrants leaving Arizona over new law | author=Myers, Amanda Lee | agency=[[Associated Press]] | newspaper=[[Austin-American Statesman]] | date=June 22, 2010}}</ref><ref name="apr-leaving">{{cite news | url=http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/14/pm-hispanics-leave-arizona-over-immigrant-law/ | title=Hispanics leave AZ over immigrant law | author=Tyler, Jeff | work=[[Marketplace (radio program)|Marketplace]] | publisher=[[American Public Media]] | date=May 18, 2010}}</ref>
 
The weeks after the bill's signing saw a sharp increase in the number of Hispanics in the state registering their party affiliations as Democrats.<ref name="az-backlash"/>
 
The Arizona legislation was one of several reasons pushing Democratic congressional leaders to introduce a proposal addressing immigration.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904512.html | title=Democrats unveil immigration-reform proposal | author=Bacon Jr., Perry | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref> Senator Schumer sent a letter to Governor Brewer asking her to delay the law while Congress works on comprehensive immigration reform, but Brewer quickly rejected the proposal.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004409-503544.html|title=Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Rejects Schumer's Plea to Delay Immigration Law|author=Condon, Stephanie|date=May 7, 2010|publisher=[[CBS News]]}}</ref>
 
Politicians in nearly a dozen states including [[Utah]], a Former Congressman in [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], a former congressman from [[Colorado]], a GOP State Delegate in [[Maryland]], a State Rep in [[Ohio]], and a State Rep in [[Missouri]] have endorsed their own state legislation on illegal immigration in the wake of Arizona SB&nbsp;1070; many of these politicians hope to pass legislation that mirrors Arizona's.<ref name="max-other">{{cite news | url=http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/arizona-immigration-states-illegal/2010/05/05/id/357991 | title=Arizona-Style Rebellions Over Immigration Spread | author=Patten, David A. | publisher=[[NewsMax.com]] | date=May 5, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/immigration-arizona-law/ | title=Report: Following Passage Of Arizona Law, At Least Seven States Contemplate Anti-Immigrant Legislation | author=Nill, Andrea | publisher=[[ThinkProgress.org]] | date=April 28, 2010}}</ref> In some cases, such as with [[Oklahoma House of Representatives]] member [[Randy Terrill]]'s position, other states would go further in regard to penalties.<ref name="nydn043010"/> Such proposals drew strong reaction both for and against,<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.koco.com/news/23312932/detail.html | title=Immigration Plan Draws Fire, Praise | publisher=[[KOCO-TV]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref> and some states may wait to see how the Arizona law fares in the courts before moving forward.<ref name="max-other"/> However, the other states along the Mexican border – Texas, New Mexico, and California – generally showed little interest in following Arizona's path.<ref name="ap-oth-border">{{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37116159 | title=Other border states shun Arizona's immigration law | agency=[[Associated Press]] | publisher=[[MSNBC]] | date=May 13, 2010 | author=Spagat, Elliot}}</ref> This was due to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with [[California Proposition 187 (1994)|California Proposition 187]] in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem.<ref name="ap-oth-border"/>
 
Some immigration experts said the law might make workers with [[H-1B visa]]s vulnerable to being caught in public without their hard-to-replace paperwork, which they are ordinarily reluctant to carry with them on a daily basis, and that as a consequence universities and technology companies in the state might find it harder to recruit students and employees.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176019/Arizona_s_new_papers_please_law_may_hurt_H_1B_workers | title=Arizona's new 'papers, please' law may hurt H-1B workers | author=Thibodeau, Patrick | newspaper=[[Computerworld]] | date=April 27, 2010}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-law-s_n_544864.html#s86807|title=Students Withdraw From Arizona Universities In Reaction To Law|publisher=[[The Huffington Post]]|date=April 27, 2010}}</ref>
 
According to federal law, agencies aren't allowed to ask about the immigration status of domestic violence victims, however women with questionable legal status have been avoiding domestic abuse hotlines and shelters for fear of deportation.<ref> [http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/immigration-issue-hurting-domestic-violence-victims Arizona domestic violence shelters hurt by new immigration law?] abc15.com. Accessed 2010-07-17.</ref> Some critics of SB1070 fear that it will serve as a roadblock to victims getting needed support. Supporters of SB1070 say that these fears are unfounded and that the Act is directed towards criminals, not victims<ref>http://www.kvoa.com/news/shelters-fear-sb1070-could-prevent-domestic-violence-victims-from-seeking-help/</ref>. Calls placed to Jan Brewer's office about the possibility that women would be unwilling to report spousal abuse have not been returned.<ref>[http://www.kvoa.com/news/shelters-fear-sb1070-could-prevent-domestic-violence-victims-from-seeking-help/ Shelters fear SB1070 could prevent domestic violence victims from seeking help] kvoa.com. Accessed 2010-07-17. </ref>
 
== Challenges to legality and constitutionality ==
=== The Supremacy Clause vs. concurrent enforcement ===
The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (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.<ref name="az-chal">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/25/20100425immigration-bill-jan-brewer-arizona.html | title=Court fight looms on new immigration law | author=Nowicki, Dan | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 25, 2010}}</ref><ref name="aclu-sec">{{cite press release | url=http://acluaz.org/SectionBySectionAnalysisSB1070UPDATED51810.pdf | title=ACLU of Arizona Section By Section Analysis of SB 1070 'Immigration; Law Enforcement; Safe Neighborhoods' As Amended by HB 2162 | publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] | date=May 18, 2010 | accessdate = July 14, 2010}}</ref> [[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."<ref name="nyt-legal"/>
 
According to one of the bill's authors (Kobach), the law embodies the doctrine of "concurrent enforcement" – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict<ref name="nyt-legal"/><ref name="NLJKobachInterview">{{cite web | url=http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202456983126 | title=The law prof behind the Arizona immigration law | publisher=National Law Journal | date =April 29, 2010 | accessdate=July 14, 2010}}</ref> – 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."<ref name="time-bill"/> State Senator Pearce noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts.<ref name="az-chal"/>
In ''Gonzales v. City of Peoria'' (9th Cir. 1983),<ref>[http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/722/468/ ''Gonzales v. City of Peoria''], 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).</ref> the Court held that the [[Immigration and Naturalization Act]] precludes local enforcement of the Act's civil provisions but does not preclude local enforcement of the Act's criminal provisions. The [[U.S. Attorney General]] may enter into a written agreement with a state or local government agency, under which that agency's employees perform the function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States;<ref>{{USC|8|1357(g)(1)}}.</ref>
however, such an agreement is not ''required'' for the agency's employees to perform those functions.<ref>
{{USC|8|1357(g)(10)}}.</ref>
 
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."<ref name="nyt-legal">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28legal.html | title=A Law Facing a Tough Road Through the Courts | author=Schwartz, John | author2=Archibold, Randal C. | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 28, 2010 | page=A17}}</ref> 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.<ref name="nyt-legal"/>
 
===Court actions filed against the Act===
On April 29, 2010, the [[National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders]] and a Tucson police officer, Martin Escobar, were the first to file suit against SB&nbsp;1070, with each doing so separately in federal court.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8653132.stm | title=Tough Arizona immigration law faces legal challenges | first=Rajesh | last=Mirchandani | publisher=[[BBC News]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref><ref name="lat-suits">{{cite news | url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/29/nation/la-na-obama-immigration-20100430 | title=Obama administration considers challenges to Arizona immigration law | author=Serrano, Richard A. | author2=Nicholas, Peter | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref> The National Coalition's filing claimed that the law usurped federal responsibilities under the Supremacy Clause, and also that it lends itself to racial profiling by imposing a "reasonable suspicion" requirement upon police officers to check the immigration status of those they come in official conduct with, which will in turn be subject to too much personal interpretation by each officer.<ref name="lat-suits"/><ref>{{cite news | url=http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_5f4f524e-53e0-11df-b705-001cc4c03286.html | title=2 lawsuits challenge Arizona's immigration law | author=Fischer, Howard | agency=Capitol Media Services | newspaper=[[Arizona Daily Star]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref> Escobar's suit argued that there was no race-neutral criteria available to him to suspect that a person was an illegal immigrant, and that implementation of the law would hinder police investigations in areas that were predominantly Hispanic.<ref name="ap-pol-split"/><ref name="ads-suit2"/> The suit also claimed the Act violated federal law because the police and the city have no authority to perform immigration-related duties.<ref name="ads-suit2"/> The Tucson police department made clear that Escobar was not acting on its behalf, and they received many calls from citizens complaining about his suit.<ref name="ads-suit2">{{cite news | url=http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_e8a094d4-53ab-11df-92c8-001cc4c002e0.html | title=Tucson cop first to sue to block AZ immigration law | author=Pedersen, Brian J. | newspaper=[[Arizona Daily Star]] | date=April 29, 2010}}</ref>
 
A Phoenix police officer, David Salgado, quickly followed with his own federal suit, claiming that to enforce the law he would be required to violate the rights of Hispanics.<ref name="az-suit3"/> He also said that he would be forced to spend his own time and resources studying the law's requirements, and that he was liable to being sued whether he enforced the law or not.<ref name="az-suit3">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/04/30/20100430immigrationsuit0430.html | title=3 lawsuits challenge legality of new law | author=Rau, Alia Beard | author2=Rough, Ginger | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=April 30, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515arizona-immigration-law-officer-lawsuits.html | title=Phoenix, Tucson officers sue over Arizona's new immigration law | author=Madrid, Ofelia | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=May 15, 2010}}</ref> Another individual suit was filed by Roberto Javier Frisancho, a naturalized citizen and Washington, D.C., resident who said he planned to visit the state to conduct research.<ref name="az-joint"/>
 
On May 5, [[Tucson, Arizona|Tucson]] and [[Flagstaff, Arizona|Flagstaff]] became the first two cities to authorize legal action against the state over the Act;<ref name="cbs050510"/> [[San Luis, Arizona|San Luis]] later joined them.<ref name="fox-suit"/> However, as of mid-late May, none of them had actually filed a suit.<ref name="az-joint"/> In late May, though, the city of Tucson filed a [[cross-claim]] and joined Officer Escobar in his suit.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12578063 | title=City of Tucson joins officer's lawsuit against SB 1070 | author=Nunez, Steve | author2=Pryor, Bryan | publisher=[[KGUN-TV]] | date=June 2, 2010}}</ref>
 
On May 17, a joint [[class action lawsuit]] was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of ten individuals and fourteen labor, religious, and civil rights organizations.<ref name="abc15-buy"/><ref name="az-joint">{{cite news | url=http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/18/20100518arizona-immigration-law-organizations-lawsuits.html | title=14 organizations, 10 individuals file suit over Arizona's immigration law | author=Rau, Alia Beard | newspaper=[[The Arizona Republic]] | date=May 18, 2010}}</ref><ref name="fox-suit">{{cite news | url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/17/aclu-civil-rights-groups-file-suit-arizona-immigration-law/ | title=ACLU, Civil Rights Groups File Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law | agency=[[Associated Press]] | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=May 17, 2010}}</ref><ref name="aclu-joint">{{cite press release | url=http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-and-civil-rights-groups-file-legal-challenge-arizona-racial-pr | title=ACLU And Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge To Arizona Racial Profiling Law | publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] | date=May 17, 2010}}</ref> The legal counsel filing the action, which is the largest of those filed, is a collaboration of the ACLU, the [[Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund]], the [[National Immigration Law Center]], the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]], the [[National Day Laborer Organizing Network]], and the [[Asian Pacific American Legal Center]].<ref name="az-joint"/> The suit seeks to prevent SB&nbsp;1070 from going into effect by charging that it:
*violates the federal Supremacy Clause by attempting to bypass federal immigration law;
*violates the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] and [[Equal Protection Clause]] rights of racial and national origin minorities by subjecting them to stops, detentions, and arrests based on their race or origin;
*violates the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rights of [[Freedom of speech in the United States|freedom of speech]] by exposing speakers to scrutiny based on their language or accent;
*violates the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]'s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because it allows for warrantless searches in absence of probable cause;
*violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by being impermissibly vague;
*and infringes on constitutional provisions that protect the right to travel without being stopped, questioned, or detained.<ref name="az-joint"/>
 
This suit named County's Attorney and Sheriffs as defendants, rather than the State of Arizona or Governor Brewer as the earlier suits had.<ref name="az-joint"/><ref name="fox-suit"/> On June 4, the ACLU and others filed a request for an [[injunction]], arguing that the Act's scheduled start date of July 29 should be postponed until the underlying legal challenges against it are resolved.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/05/new-challenge-to-arizona-immigration-law/?test=latestnews | title=New Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law | author=Ross, Lee | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=June 5, 2010}}</ref>
 
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the state affiliate of the [[National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers]], alleged in an [[amicus curiae]] brief for the ACLU et. al. case that the prolonged detentions mandated by the law when there is reasonable suspicion that someone subject to a lawful stop is an illegal alien are justifiable only under the [[probable cause]] standard and thus that the law requires violations of [[Fourth Amendment]] rights.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/06/important-new-sb-1070-brief-filed-aacj.html|work=Goldwater State (weblog)|author=Bennett Kalafut|title=Important new SB 1070 brief filed: AACJ says law requires 4th Amendment violations.|accessdate=June 22, 2010}}</ref><ref name="aacj">{{cite web|url=http://www.aacj.org/resources/uploads/amicuscuriaebrief.aacj.final.pdf|title=Amicus curiae brief by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, No. CV-10-01061-JWS|accessdate=June 22, 2010}}</ref> The [[Anti-Defamation League]] also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of this case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/2010/pdf/motion_forleavetofile_amicusbrief.pdf|title=Motion for leave to file brief of amicus curiae Anti-Defamation League in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, No. CV 10-1061-PHX-JWS|accessdate=June 22, 2010}}</ref> So too did the [[Government of Mexico]], saying the the law is unconstitutional, would lead to unlawful discrimination against Mexican citizens, and would damage bilateral relations between the two nations.<ref name="mex-chal">{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10386190.stm | title=Mexico joins Arizona immigration lawsuit | publisher=[[BBC News]] | date=June 23, 2010}}</ref>
 
It is possible that all the suits against the law would be combined into one case for the courts to hear.<ref name="az-joint"/><ref name="fox-suit"/> Kobach remained optimistic that the suits would fail, saying "I think it will be difficult for the plaintiffs challenging this. They are heavy on political rhetoric but light on legal arguments."<ref name="az-p-k"/> In late May 2010, Governor Brewer issued an executive order to create the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund to handle suits over the law.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/27/2010-05-27_arizona_governor_jan_brewer_creates_legal_defense_fund_for_suits_over_immigratio.html | title=Arizona Governor Jan Brewer creates legal defense fund for suits over immigration law SB1070 | agency=[[Associated Press]] | newspaper=[[New York Daily News]] | date=May 27, 2010}}</ref><ref name="ap-donations"/> Brewer got into a dispute with Arizona Attorney General [[Terry Goddard]] over whether he would defend the law against legal challenges, as a state attorney general normally would.<ref name="nyt-memday"/> Brewer accused Goddard, who opposed the law personally and was one of Brewer's possible rivals in the gubernatorial election, of colluding with the U.S. Justice Department as it deliberated whether to challenge the law in court.<ref name="nyt-memday"/> Goddard subsequently agreed to withdraw from the state's defense.<ref name="ap-donations"/>
 
Hearings on some of these suits are scheduled for July 15 and July 22.<ref name="wapo-feds"/> So many amicus curiae briefs have been filed regarding the law that U.S. District Judge [[Susan Bolton]] has imposed size limits on them.<ref name="ap-donations"/>
 
===Department of Justice lawsuit===
{{main|United States of America v. Arizona}}
The [[United States Department of Justice]] filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in the [[U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona]] on July 6, 2010, asking that the law be declared invalid since it interferes with the immigration regulations "exclusively vested in the federal government."<ref name="Feds sue">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/06/arizona.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2 | title=Feds sue to overturn Arizona immigration law | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=July 6, 2010 }}</ref><ref name="cbs-feds"/> In a brief to the press, the department's lawyers referenced the notion of [[federal preemption]] and stated that, "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,"<ref name="wapo-feds">{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?hpid=topnews | title=Justice Department sues Arizona over immigration law | author=Markon, Jerry | author2=Shear, Michael D. | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=July 6, 2010}}</ref> and that "The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns – concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."<ref name="Feds sue" /> This pointed to an additional practical argument, that being that the law would result in federal authorities losing focus on their broader priorities in order to deal with an influx of deportations from Arizona.<ref name="wapo-feds"/> The Justice Department requested that the federal courts issue an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law before it goes into effect.<ref name="Feds sue" /> The suit does not argue that the law will lead to racial profiling, although department officials said they would continue to monitor that aspect when and if the measure went into effect.<ref name="wapo-feds"/>
 
A direct suit of a state by the federal government is quite unusual, and the action held possible political consequences for the [[United States elections, 2010|2010 U.S. midterm elections]] as well.<ref name="wapo-feds"/> It was also seen as a preemptive measure to discourage other states considering similar laws from moving forward with them.<ref name="nyt-feds">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07immig.html | title=Justice Dept. Sues Arizona Over Its Immigration Law | author=Preston, Julia | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=July 7, 2010 | page=A3}}</ref> Immediate reaction to the Justice Department's decision was highly split, with liberal groups hailing it but with Governor Brewer calling it "nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds."<ref name="wapo-feds"/> Senators Kyl and McCain released a joint statement noting that "the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law."<ref name="cbs-feds">{{cite news | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/06/politics/main6651468.shtml | title=Feds Sue to Block Ariz. Immigration Law | publisher=[[CBS News]] | date=July 6, 2010}}</ref> Congressman [[Darrell Issa]], one of nineteen Republicans to sign a letter criticizing the suit on the day it was announced, said "For President Obama to stand in the way of a state which has taken action to stand up for its citizens against the daily threat of violence and fear is disgraceful and a betrayal of his Constitutional obligation to protect our citizens."<ref name="nyt-feds"/> The federal action also led to a surge in contributions to the governor's defense fund for the law; by July 8, total donations were over $500,000, with the large majority of them being for $100 or less and coming from around the nation.<ref name="ap-donations">{{cite news | url=http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/immigration-defense-fund-donations-7-8-2010 | title=Donations to Immigration Law's Defense Fund Top $500K | agency=[[Associated Press]] | publisher=[[KSAZ-TV]] | date=July 8, 2010}}</ref>
 
==See also==
{{Portal|Arizona}}
* [[Illegal immigration in the United States]]
* [[Chandler Roundup]]
* [[Special Order 40]]
 
== Notes ==
{{refs|colwidth=30em}}
 
== References ==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite web | url=http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm | title=State of Arizona: 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 113, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session: Senate Bill 1070: House Engrossed Senate Bill: immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods (NOW: safe neighborhoods; immigration; law enforcement)| publisher=[[Arizona State Legislature]] | accessdate=April 30, 2010}}
* {{cite web | url=http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2R/laws/0211.htm | title=State of Arizona: Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session 2010: Session Laws, Chapter 211, House Bill 2162: Conference Version| publisher=[[Arizona State Legislature]] | accessdate=May 4, 2010}}
{{refend}}
 
==External links==
{{commons category}}
* [http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070&image.x=6&image.y=7 Documents for SB&nbsp;1070 at the Arizona State Legislature]
* [http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2162 Documents for HB&nbsp;2162 at the Arizona State Legislature]
* [http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF SB1070 as amended by HB 2162 (combined version), unofficial but provided by Arizona State Legislature]
* [http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf House Engrossed Senate Bill SB 1070, as enacted], [http://azgovernor.gov/ Arizona Governor website].
* [http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/HB_2162Signed.pdf Conference engrossed Bill HB 2162 Amending SB 1070, as enacted], [http://azgovernor.gov/ Arizona Governor website].
* [[Gabriel J. Chin]], Carissa Byrne Hessick, Toni Massaro & Marc Miller, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1617440 ''Arizona Senate Bill 1070: A Preliminary Report''], [[Social Science Research Network]]
 
{{IIUS}}
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Arizona Sb1070}}
[[Category:Arizona statutes]]
[[Category:United States immigration law]]
[[Category:2010 in law]]
[[Category:2010 in the United States]]
[[Category:Illegal immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Race-related legal issues]]
 
[[es:Arizona SB1070]]
[[he:Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070"