As the days tick down until the Arizona immigration law takes effect, the state stands as a monument to the anger over illegal immigration that is present in so many places.
The anger has been simmering for years, and erupted into a full-blown fury with the murder of a prominent rancher on the border earlier this year. The killing became a powerful rallying cry for immigration reform and the sweeping new law set to take effect Thursday, barring any last-minute legal action.
But it does not tell the whole story about how Arizona got to this point.
Turn on the evening news in Arizona and some report reflecting the state's battle with illegal immigration will likely flash across the screen.
A drop house crammed with illegal border-crossers smack in the middle of a suburban neighborhood. Traffic patrols and workplace raids that net the arrest of dozens of illegal immigrants, often in heavily Hispanic communities. Politicians speaking venomously about border violence and the leech of immigration costs on the state treasury.
Along the streets, Arizonans see day laborers near Wal-Mart and Home Depot parking lots, waiting for work. In some Phoenix-area neighborhoods, Spanish is so predominant both in spoken word and signage that residents complain they feel like they're in a foreign country.
Then rancher Robert Krentz was gunned down in March while checking water lines on his property near the border. Authorities believe — but have never produced substantive proof — that an illegal immigrant, likely a scout for drug smugglers, was to blame.
Almost immediately Krentz came to symbolize what's at stake with illegal immigration. Politicians quickly connected the dots, but everyday folks also spoke with anger and fear about the rancher's death.
"You can't ignore the damage and the costs to the taxpayers and the disrespect that comes with it and those who think they have a right to break our laws," says Russell Pearce, the fiery state senator who wrote Arizona's new immigration law.
Pearce, in fact, is the godfather of anti-illegal immigration sentiment in Arizona and author of many of the tough laws.
He regularly depicts illegal immigration as an "invasion." He can tick off the names of police officers killed or wounded by criminals in the country illegally.
One of those names is that of his son, Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputy Sean Pearce, who survived a gunshot wound to the abdomen from an illegal immigrant in 2004 while serving a search warrant in a homicide case.
That might explain Pearce's indefatigable effort against those entering the country illegally, but he says he held tough views before his son was shot. He insists that his frustration centers more broadly on the crime that immigrant smugglers bring into the country and the financial stress that illegal border-crossers put on communities.
Between 40 percent and 50 percent of all immigrant arrests each year on the U.S.-Mexico border are made in Arizona, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.
And the annual costs? About $600 million for educating illegal immigrants at K-12 schools, more than $120 million for jailing illegal immigrants convicted of state crimes and as much as $50 million that hospitals have to eat for treating illegal border-crossers, according to figures provided by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, Gov. Jan Brewer's office and the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.
At Copper Queen Community Hospital, 4 miles north of the border in Bisbee, the emergency room sees one or two illegal immigrants every shift. Dr. Daniel Roe, the emergency-room medical director, says many come in with broken bones from jumping the 15-foot-tall border fence, others suffer from walking for days in the desert with little to no water, and others have been involved in car accidents.
"It's very much part of our normal flow," he says. "But it demands resources. So it affects the operating budget."
Immigrant medical costs led the hospital to shutter a skilled nursing facility and its maternity ward several years ago, according to the hospital's top administrator.
John Leopard, who camped out with Minuteman Project volunteers during a 2005 patrol north of the border, says he's not as irritated by seeing day laborers lining street corners as he is the federal government's inactions and the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law.
The law requires police who are enforcing other laws to check a person's immigration status if officers reasonably suspect the person is in the country illegally. It also requires that people carry and produce their immigration papers, while making it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work in a public place.
"We have policies that are injurious to our well-being," says Leopard, a retired computer scientist whose housekeeper was in the country illegally before she was able to obtain U.S. citizenship.
Don Sorchych, editor and publisher of a small local newspaper called the Sonoran News, says over the past 20 years his quaint Phoenix-area town of Cave Creek has seen illegal immigrants set up "villages" made of scrap lumber and canvas.
"I think people confuse racial profiling and being a racist," Sorchych says. "I'm not saying you should, but if you could profile, you'd be right 95 percent of the time. They wear a certain uniform, certain shoes, gloves in their back pockets, clothes from Goodwill."
Sorchych got so fired up about illegal immigration that he took photos of people who picked up day laborers and published them.
"I am not so sure it's the media and politicians who are whipping this up as much as the public," said Rick Van Schoik, director of Arizona State University's North American Center for Transborder Studies. "In election years, people who tend toward either extreme want to find passions that their cause would win the election."
The immigration anger has led the state to pass at least seven laws cracking down on illegal immigration in as many years. Those laws made English the state's official language, denied bail to illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes and prohibited them from being awarded punitive damages in civil cases.
Opponents of the law say illegal immigrants are being scapegoated and wrongly characterized as freeloaders, pointing out that they pay sales taxes and put money into Social Security that they will never be able to take out.
They say the state's rapid growth over the last decade couldn't have happened without immigrant labor, that housing prices have been kept reasonable by those who did work that U.S. citizens wouldn't — like roofing a new subdivision in Arizona's 110-degree summer heat.
As Joy Williams of Tucson sees it, immigrants add to the melting pot that is Arizona and are doing jobs Americans don't want.
Williams, who works as a research clerk in the Pima County Legal Defender's Office, is also angry — but about what she says is the open racism she's seen and heard in recent months.
"What is so shocking is people can be so openly verbal about it now and not even flinch," she says.
Since Arizona passed its new immigration law, immigrant rights groups say Hispanics are seeing more open hostility.
Lydia Guzman, president of the Phoenix-based Hispanic civil rights group Somos America, says community members are reporting racial slurs like never before. She says she experienced it herself in May while waiting in line at a grocery store, when one woman looked at Guzman's cart and whispered to another, "I wonder how much this is going to cost us?'"
Another group, Puente, said its calls complaining of racial incidents have jumped from about two calls a week to five to six a week.
Lilia Ramos, a 46-year-old illegal immigrant from Acapulco, called Puenute to lodge a complaint against the Arizona Humane Society in a dispute involving a dog found on her property.
Ramos says that when she called the Humane Society to report that the dog didn't belong to her family, the woman on the other end of the line became angry when Ramos asked if she could speak to someone in Spanish.
"She said, 'There's no one. Are you an American citizen?'" Ramos said in Spanish. "I said no, and then she asked if I had a green card, and 'if you don't cooperate, we'll arrest you.' I was quiet and it really scared me."
Ramos wonders what her papers had to do with an animal seizure and feels the incident wouldn't have happened if not for Arizona's new law.
"I like the United States, but I don't like Arizona anymore," she says.
brainfreeze posted at 1:36 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Ramos, an illegal, says; "I like the United States, but I don't like Arizona anymore."
If you like the United States then do all the required work to be here LEGALLY. If you don't want to or feel you need to, pack your bags and get out. AZ has spoken loud and clear that you're not wanted, as an illegal, and the rest of the US doesn't want the illegals either.
cascasual posted at 2:37 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Thanks for jumping on Ramos, you beat me to it. I can't believe this stuff. Get these people out of here until their willing to follow the rules of America.
AZMomma posted at 2:45 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Senora Ramos, may I echo the other poster and suggest you pack your possessions and head somewhere else. Maybe a place more hospitable to immigration-criminals.
Vaya con Dios and Adios Bich*os.
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:29 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
"Then rancher Robert Krentz was gunned down in March while checking water lines on his property near the border. Authorities believe — but have never produced substantive proof — that an illegal immigrant, likely a scout for drug smugglers, was to blame" -- The tracks led due south and continued into Mexico. That's all the PROOF I need....
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:47 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
'He regularly depicts illegal immigration as an "invasion."' -- Gee. 12 to 25 MILLION foreign nationals sounds like an invasion to me.....
"Opponents of the law say illegal immigrants are being scapegoated and wrongly characterized as freeloaders, pointing out that they pay sales taxes and put money into Social Security that they will never be able to take out' -- Definition of a freeload: "to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved". As for paying taxes and SS, if they get paid in cash, no SS. They may pay state taxes on goods that they buy, but easily could be with money they got from the state. In the long run, they RECEIVE much more than they REPLACE. I'd love to give you $1, then you give me back $5. Where's the line for US CITIZENS....
To Lilia Ramos-- Get on the I-10 and head due west. California will be happy to take you. However, since their finances are in worse shape, that may change soon as well...
rrjenn posted at 5:20 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
130 billion dollars per year is what the freeloaders cost America. That doesn't even include the cost of giving unemployment to all the legal Americans that the freeloaders have stolen jobs from.
beachdude posted at 6:37 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Getting ready to come back in a couple of months in the fall. Sure glad to finally see that the illegals are packing and leaving. I feel safer but am afraid they will be awaiting me when I return home next April. All states need to pass this law.
btbeme posted at 7:08 pm on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Don't like AZ? Move left, or right. NM and CA welocme you. Breed happily. May you have many anchor babies.
ArizonaRising posted at 1:54 am on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
SB 1070 is really a law to end government and corporate slavery in the United States and it reveals the willing accomplices in other nations that benefit from expoiting their populations and forcing many to migrate - right into the arms of more work slavery. We are dealing with global predators and psychopaths whose time is just about up.
Interestingly, the arguments against this immigration law are almost the same arguments that the slave masters and importers used as to why they needed to keep importing African slaves to work in the cotton fields. They told their slaves they were 'essential workers' - 'they were made for this work' - 'Americans won't work in the fields' - etc, etc.
Of course, formal slavery ended - but the slave masters simply changed hats. AZ is the only state to finally stand up and say enough.
Ann789 posted at 12:20 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
What's funny is the undocument folks claim they have rights but they fail to see "the legal" citizens have rights too. They refuse to learn English and expect things to be written in spanish but have no translation in English. Its only the hispanics that seem to feel they don't have to comply with the laws of this country.
It is in the US Statutes (laws) that they have to apply to come here and by "sneaking" into this country they are breaking federal laws. Also they say or claim that SB1070 is "unconstitutional" but there is othing in the constitution about immigration. NOT even the 14th mentions immigration, it only mentions citizens born here or those born to "naturalized" or legal immigrants.
The orginal meaning of the amendment was with regard to the newly freed slaves AFTER the civil war. Why don't these so called rights activist work to help the illegals become citizens? Why don't these illegals denounce the drug and human smugglers? Why do these illegals allow criminals to remain free and not turn them in?
No I don't think they want to become citizens and I for one am tired of see jobs that "require" onr to be "bi-lingual" in order to apply.
One of the requirements of becoming a citizen is to learn English.
forkedlift1 posted at 2:40 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Ann, you haven't kept up with the legal arguments against SB 1070. It's the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the the doctrine of pre-emption. You need some catching up to do. Try Googling some of these terms.
Ann789 posted at 2:58 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Forkedlift - I am aware of that clause and again SB1070 does no impede on it either.
Its a fact that even under federal law someone here who is applying for citizenship has to carry appropiate documentation.
Again SB1070 does not set immigration law it only states what is already on the books under federal law.
I am currently going to school for legal studies so I am aware of where to look for such laws.
SB1070 makes it illegal to be in the state of AZ illegally which if you read federal law says it is illegal to be in the US without being documented.
What about the part of the constitution that says the federal government has the duty to protect the states from invasions?
My proof:
Article IV - The States
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Ann789 posted at 3:00 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Further speaking of the consitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ann789 posted at 3:06 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
As I have stated I have done the research and here is some text regarding US Immigration law and a link
a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful
(1) In general
It is unlawful for a person or other entity - (A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or (B)(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the
United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section.
(a) Documents required; admission under quotas before June 30, 1968 Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) of this
section no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document or document of
identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June
30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8
forkedlift1 posted at 4:33 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Ann, well you certainly are in disagreement with the feds.
From what I read in their 25-page complaint, they do recognize the federal immigration laws that you cite about employment.
However, they also point out how SB 1070 differs substantially from federal immigration laws and policy.
"In enacting penalties on employers of unlawful aliens, as well as on unlawful aliens who engage in document fraud, Congress chose not to impose criminal penalties on aliens for solely seeking or obtaining employment in the United States without authorization and in fact decided that criminal sanctions for seeking or obtaining employment would run counter to the purposes of the immigration system. Although unlawfully present aliens may be subject to removal, no criminal penalty attaches simply because an alien has solicited or performed work without proper authorization."
You apparently are of the belief that because of the Tenth Amendment, Arizona can legally enact any laws it darn well pleases.
Either that, or you believe that there is no conflict between Arizona's SB 1070 and the U.S. Constitution along with numerous acts of Congress pertaining to federal immigration policy and enactments: i.e., that the federal government does NOT have preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters.
For all that, we await decisions by the courts.
Your citation of Article IV, Section 4 is curious.
BTW, it is not entitled "Republican government" (at least not in my copy of the Constitution), and in the text of the brief section "republican form" is not capitalized.
forkedlift1 posted at 5:21 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Ann,
Amazing that with all your interest in immigration laws and the whole legal issue regarding SB 1070, your FIVE posts of today are the first time you've expressed that interest on this website, at least under your "Ann789" screen name.
I just reread your first post here, addressing the 14th Amendment and your interpretation of same, so I assume you're hanging in there (or out there) with Russell Pearce on his latest announced proposal.
With regard to the intent of the 14h Amendment, here it is from the May 30, 1868 Congressional Globe, the official record of the day, straight from the "horse's mouth" -- clarifications from Sen. Jacob Howard, the U.S. Senator who introduced the amendment.
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, MAY 30, 1868 (re born citizens, 14h Amendment)
"SEN JACOB HOWARD: The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."
I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF 14th AMENDMENT
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Ann789 posted at 12:04 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
Forkedlifted
as far as me posting - I only just found this site and just wanted to voice my opinion.
Ann789 posted at 12:07 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
Forkedlifted
bottem line is the illegals are breaking federal laws.
I am not a lawyer - nor do I pretend to be. I am just stating facts of law and from discussions I have had with others.......