Public Supports Arizona's Racial Profiling

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 13, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

             When the Arizona legislature passed its controversial immigration law April 19, it expected challenges from the federal government.  Signing the bill into law May 12, Gov. Jan Brewer denied the bill involved racial profiling, insisting Arizona voters supported the idea of giving law enforcement the authority to determine whether citizens were in the country legally.  Federal arguments about racial profiling take a backseat to a public fed up with competing against illegal aliens for jobs, government benefits and services.  A new TechnoMedia Market Intelligence poll indicated the public supports the new law 51%, while only 35% support the federal government’s suit filed July 6 in Arizona’s federal court.  U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder Jr. filed suit because he believes the law violates racial profiling statutes, but, more importantly, encroaches the government’s immigration authority.

           Public sentiment, especially against illegal aliens, doesn’t always comport with the U.S. Constitution or its 27 amendments.  Recent laws passed in California banning gay marriage may violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, despite passed by a majority of voters.  Voter passage reflects public sentiment, not whether the new law cuts the muster when it comes to U.S. civil rights laws.  “What is interesting here is that Americans are on the side of Arizona and seem to not share the U.S. government’s views against the law, despite wide media coverage of the clash between [President] Obama and [Ariz. Gov. Jan] Brewer on the this issue,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of the TIPP poll.  Past generations saw strong public support banning interracial marriage doesn’t mean that it’s Constitutional or right.  Today’s support of racial profiling in Arizona reflect public frustration.

             No matter how proponents spin the new law, that goes into effect July 30, it’s racial profiling.  Under the new law, police need no probable cause other than suspecting the person in question has no legal papers or ID.  Public support of unconstitutional laws reflect regional problems, whether it’s segregation, gay marriage or illegal immigration issues.  Respondents in the TIPP poll showed support for the Arizona law at 55% in the South and 56% in the West, two areas most xenophobic or impacted by illegal immigration.  Arizona’s law clearly reflected a public backlash against violent illegal immigration.  Usurping the federal government’s authority to manage immigration or control the borders is only one aspect making the Arizona law illegal.  Local law enforcement is commissioned to fight crime, not to enforce border issues or control illegal immigration.

            Polls reflect respondents’ sentiment and don’t mirror the constitutionality or legality of specific laws.  Law enforcement organizations in Phoenix and Tucson reject Arizona’s new law because it pits police against fellow citizens, whether or not they have legal status.  Arizona’s SB 1070 pits Latino law enforcement against Latino immigrants, requiring arrests based on appearances not normal criminal probable cause.  “The question I have and the public should ask about this poll is how much were the respondents informed specifically about the law before they answered the questions,” said Vilanova University professor Matthew Kerbel, questioning whether the support would be there if the public were better informed.  Kerbel gives the public the benefit of the doubt, predicting less support if they knew the Arizona’s law was unconstitutional, prompting a court review.

             Arizona’s new law, if nothing else, pushed along the immigration debate, forcing the federal government to play a more active role.  Holder’s lawsuit filed July 6 in U.S. District Court seeks to establish the federal government’s final authority in matters involving immigration.  While Arizona felt compelled to pass its own immigration law, the Justice Dept. seeks to limit states’ rights when it comes to immigration.  TIPP’s recent poll indicated the 61% of blanks and Hispanics oppose SB 1070, believing that the law discriminates against Latinos.  “The differences between whites and nonwhites on this are very stark,” said Kerbel.  Latinos and blacks see the Arizona laws as a form of racial profiling.  Whites, on the other hand, believe the law is justified because the federal government dropped the ball on immigration.  Arizona’s law got the White House and Congress’ attention.

            Arizona’s SB 1070 forces local law enforcement into the immigration business, trampling on federal immigration law.  Despite the government’s inability to enforce immigration laws, states’ rights don’t give states like Arizona the right to usurp the federal government’s jurisdiction on immigration law.  Individual states must not accept local customs and practices, allowing federal law to assure an orderly society.  Different parts of the country have different traditions, and even constitutional interpretations, but they can’t rewrite the Constitution or ignore longstanding amendments.  Today’s hotly contested debates about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, etc. raise different issues in different parts of the country but they don’t give states the right to ignore the Constitution and make up their own laws.  Holder’s suit in federal court shouldn’t take too much convincing to win.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.