Arizona's Immigration Laws

I am an immigrant to your/this country.

I came here to study at a university. I took a job from approximately 299 Americans who, presumably, could have done it as well as I did. (Interestingly, the other person on the shortlist told me that he believed hiring me was an act of discrimination and that I had "dogged" him.) I have brown skin. I married an American. I was told I was only into him for the visa. (Almost 20 years later, I still worry about whether I have to prove our relationship is genuine.) I use the health care system. I have paid my speeding ticket and been to traffic school. I pay my taxes. I very definitely pay my taxes; I have been audited and found to owe nothing. And a little while ago, I began the process to naturalize myself as a citizen.

If you read back through previous immigration posts, you will find that I have been slow to move; I was eligible to do this back in 1999. I am disturbed, troubled, and freaked out by displays of nationalism and patriotism. I cry for the destruction wrought on others in the name of a "country." I can barely write the words "fatherland" or "mother-tongue." I don't participate in large crowds and even before my disability, I made a point of not joining in even the most conventional and innocuous reiterations of the (British) national anthem -- before, say, a symphony concert.

I marched in 2006 for immigration rights; I will do so again. Because the law in Arizona does not represent to me the country I wish to join. The law in Arizona is the outcome of the politics of fear and hate. This is not how America represents itself on the world stage. This is a state -- whose politics I do not know and cannot fully understand because I do not live there -- this is a state on the border, yes, but now seemingly on the edge of shocking unconstitutional acts.

It is important to understand that this particular act did not just come out of the blue. Arizona has been struggling with all aspects of immigration for quite a while. Take, for example, the English-Only legislation that was finally ruled unconstitutional in 1999. (Interesting articles here, here and here.) You will remember the way immigration and Arizona were inextricably linked during the last two election cycles and beyond. Something like this has been brewing for a while. We have known that something like this was coming.

You can read the bill here. I keep trying to finish it, but I keep stumbling over stuff.

These are among the provisions of the law (per NYT), police officers are required

when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

How will they know? Will they look at the kind of car? The clothes? The way people walk? Or will they simply stop the first non-white, non-upper middle class person they see? It's not like immigrants -- documented or non -- walk around with a big "I" stamped on us.

The NYT continues:

It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers.

This scares me. This scares me.

This provision legalizes the creation of two classes of people (immigrant and non) and criminalizes only one class for not carrying proof of its membership in that class. Does this ring any historical bells for anyone? Beyond becoming a "criminal" who has committed a "misdemeanour" (and, btw, being "convicted" for such a crime totally affects your immigration application), being unable to provide documentation disenfranchises you; it could even prevent you from accessing such basics as health care. This provision of the law renders one set of people invisible; it denies them access to the protections and human rights afforded members of the other class. It legalizes the dehumanization of a set of people who want to work to support their families and themselves.

Perhaps the state has the right to ask that everyone carry proof of their place in the country, but there's a reason that the US has not been able to implement laws about a national identity card: Americans value their privacy and their individualism -- even when the threats of terrorism and illegal immigration are thrown around. (This site seems to track National/Real ID legislation; most of the entries are about 2008, but there's a couple for 2010 and the history of ID legislation is fairly tidy.)

Here's another provision (E: from the bill itself):

A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

Two questions: what kinds of offenses make people removable? (Note: even the very word choice -- removable -- makes it sound like you are taking out the trash.) Turns out that besides the biggies, like you know, murder, the case for removability can be built from smaller things such as traffic offenses. Without a warrant? Perhaps that's one thing if you see a person on the street robbing a bank, but I can see it being used as an excuse to enter homes, to conduct raids, to begin to hunt people down. I can see it being used as a way of legalizing the immigration equivalent of witch hunts.

I could go on. And believe me, the law does. But here's what I am going to do. I have been fingerprinted. I have filled out a wealth of forms. I have a little booklet to study from. I will take that citizenship exam. And, then, dammit, I will vote.

I will vote.

I will vote.

Because this is wrong.